People often say this but there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to back it up beyond statements like your 'I couldn't picture a poor street' etc., which is no kind of evidence at all. I can picture 'poor streets' getting the same, so where does that leave us?

What's more, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Most council estates were built on what we would now call LTN principles: you can drive into them but not through them, the roads, junctions and crossings are narrow, to discourage speeding and make it quicker and easier for pedestrians to cross, and the speed limits are set low, etc. It's possible that many of the new LTNs are being installed in wealthier neighbourhoods simply because the poorer neighbourhoods already are effectively LTNs. And, in any case, why should being wealthy mean you shouldn't get to breathe clean air?

Having said that, some of the most extensive new LTNs have been built in Newham and Tower Hamlets (where the mayor is trying to take them out despite their popularity), which are two of the poorest boroughs in London. As the article points out, most LTNs have been installed by Labour councils, which tend to be in the poorer areas. It strikes me as unlikely that the poorest councils have all decided to install LTNs exclusively in the richer enclaves.

More broadly, LEZ and ULEZ were initially rolled out in the inner city: where poorer people tend to live. So, your argument just doesn't hold up at all.