Traffic campaign exposes officials’ retreat behind excuses and inaction

The Putney Action Group has done everything right. They organised residents, gathered evidence, and secured a meeting late last week with MP Fleur Anderson and Councillor Jenny Yates to demand action over Putney’s traffic problems.

But their update on what happened at that meeting reveals an uncomfortable truth: even when pressured into action, our elected officials retreat behind vague explanations while offering more consultation instead of concrete solutions.

“On 17 September, the Putney Action Group met with Fleur Anderson MP and Cllr Jenny Yates to discuss congestion in Putney,” the update began.

“Fleur has committed to supporting us in securing a meeting with TfL if we don’t hear back from them soon. Jenny confirmed that while TfL approved the current road and junction layouts (which cannot simply be reversed under present regulations), there is recognition that light sequencing at key junctions could be contributing to delays. 

Jenny also suggested that PAG take part in “walkabouts” with transport engineers to monitor flow at hotspots such as Putney Bridge, the High Street and Lower Richmond Road.

It was back in May that Anderson and Yates held a public meeting and told residents nothing could be done about the state of traffic in Putney – something that had been made significantly worse by the recent redesign of the Putney Bridge junction.

We now know – thanks to a FOI request – that Yates and Anderson had already co-chaired four closed-door meetings on 8 February, 28 March, 25 April and 23 May with Transport for London (TfL) on the problems that the new junction design is causing. The focus of those meetings wasn’t what is most bothering Putney residents however – car traffic, congestion, road safety and air pollution – but buses.

Fast forward another four months, and a further two meetings, and still nothing has been achieved, even on the buses. By requesting official documentation, Putney.news has discovered that TfL doesn’t even officially recognise the meetings and Wandsworth Council told us it has no minutes or action points from the “taskforce” despite being co-chaired by its own cabinet member for transport.

So when the Putney Action Group produced a report last week outlining the stark views of over 1,300 Putney residents that not only undermined the council’s key justification for the junction design but also explicitly threatened legal action if the council did not take its responsibilities seriously, there was a glimmer of hope that we would finally see proper recognition of how serious the problem is.

Traffic crisis meetings produce confusion and few results

Decoding “cannot simply be reversed under present regulations”

The PAG main asking point was that the new junction design be discarded. This was dismissed when Councillor Yates claimed that the current junction layouts “cannot simply be reversed under present regulations.” That sounds definitive but actually covers several specific obstacles that could be overcome with sufficient political determination.

The “regulations” likely refer to several legal and technical constraints: Traffic Regulation Orders requiring formal consultation processes, design approval commitments tied to TfL funding, technical safety standards that may no longer permit older junction configurations, and the chain of authority where TfL must approve changes to main roads.

Transport engineering experts confirm these create genuine complexity. Once kerbs are moved, drainage altered, and signal equipment installed, complete reversal requires major construction work. When boroughs receive TfL or government funding for road works, there are often contract requirements that approved designs must be implemented. Road safety audits accompanying new junction designs mean changes may require fresh safety assessments.

But crucially, saying something “cannot simply be reversed” doesn’t mean it’s impossible – rather that reversal would require a lot of work: a full design review, funding, and more disruption. This distinction matters because complicated procedures are being presented as absolute barriers rather than challenges that could be overcome with sufficient political will and resources.

More telling is what Yates didn’t offer: specific details about which regulations prevent action, timelines for overcoming regulatory obstacles, cost estimates for different approaches, or alternative strategies that might achieve traffic improvements through different pathways. Her response suggests an official who has accepted regulatory constraints without exploring ways around them.

Putney junction redesign a complete failure, say 9 out of 10 locals

Walkabouts: real solutions or box-ticking?

Yates’ suggestion that PAG join “walkabouts with transport engineers” sounds collaborative but could easily become another consultation exercise leading nowhere.

Walkabouts have legitimate technical value. Engineers often rely on traffic models and sensor data that miss real-world interactions – unexpected driver behavior, pedestrian crossing conflicts, bus hold-ups, and small problems that affect traffic flow. Checking real conditions can deliver meaningful improvements without wholesale redesign.

Including residents builds transparency and trust and reduces suspicion about behind-the-scenes decision-making. Walkabouts can add qualitative insights about where drivers queue, where pedestrians struggle, and where buses get stuck.

But they also offer perfect cover for officials who want to appear engaged while postponing decisions. Without a commitment to act on findings, they would be symbolic rather than substantive. If engineering teams lack authority to implement changes or TfL refuses to approve modifications, even excellent walkabout findings won’t translate into concrete improvements.

We know that traffic engineers have already seen and walked the site multiple times.

We know from FOI requests that they already have the data they need pre- and post-redesign to make an assessment of the new design’s impact.

We know that they have see videos of an empty junction at rush hour, while at the same time traffic is backed up for a mile on side roads.

If the proposed walkabouts are worth anything they will come with published timelines, specific commitments to implement findings, and genuine authority to make changes. Without that, they simply add to the growing list of consultations.

Putney residents unleash damning legal challenge over traffic nightmare

MP’s promises after previous failures

Anderson’s offer to help secure a TfL meeting “if we don’t hear back from them soon” comes after months of closed-door meetings that she has held with TfL that have achieved nothing meaningful.

Her conditional approach suggests someone making commitments while uncertain about her actual leverage over transport authorities that routinely ignore local political pressure.

Anderson’s latest promise follows a clear pattern: reactive engagement that responds to resident pressure but avoids confronting TfL’s fundamental resistance to community input.

The conditional nature of her commitment – helping “if” TfL continues stonewalling – suggests an MP who wants to help but lacks clear strategies for forcing engagement from transport authorities that operate with considerable independence.

The evidence is overwhelming: Putney needs action over traffic, not more assessments

What real challenge would look like

Instead of accepting regulatory explanations and offering more consultation, effective political representation would pursue concrete alternatives while building pressure for systematic change.

Demand full transparency:

Publish the traffic modelling used before junction redesign, compare these with actual traffic counts, and demand explanations for any differences between predicted and actual performance.

Commission independent assessment:

Bring in external traffic engineering firms to evaluate current junction performance against industry best practice, safety standards, and capacity optimisation..

The council has done this – bringing back both the original junction designers while also hiring an independent company to review the junction. But it has so far failed to give any details or promise to make the results public, and even the fact it has hired a second company has not been made public.

Push tactical changes first:

Rather than full reversion, demand specific adjustments that work within existing frameworks – signal phasing modifications, turning restriction changes, lane usage optimisation, improvements to coordination with nearby lights. These cheaper, faster interventions can deliver meaningful improvements while longer-term solutions develop.

Trial temporary modifications:

Use cones, temporary barriers, and adjustable measures to test different traffic configurations before implementing permanent changes. Short-term experiments address regulatory concerns about untested modifications while delivering quicker relief for daily commuters.

Set accountability deadlines:

Any walkabouts should come with published commitments – “within four weeks of walkabout, engineering team will publish summary findings and propose specific changes; within three months, council will decide which modifications to trial or implement.” Without concrete timelines, consultation becomes excuse for endless delay.

Escalate pressure:

Use parliamentary and council leverage to involve London Assembly, Greater London Authority, or independent transport watchdogs in demanding TfL accountability and review of repeated failures to engage with community concerns.

Link to broader traffic solutions:

Connect junction problems to wider Thames crossing issues, particularly Hammersmith Bridge delays that divert traffic through Putney. Demand integrated solutions rather than isolated fixes that may be overwhelmed by continuing traffic displacement.

Hammersmith Bridge: A masterclass in evasion, delay, and political cowardice

The Pattern: process instead of progress

From initial attempts to avoid action entirely at public meetings to closed bus-focused sessions that achieved nothing to current offers of walkabouts and light-timing reviews, elected officials consistently respond to sustained resident pressure with more consultation rather than challenging barriers.

Residents deserve political representation that challenges regulatory barriers rather than hides behind them, uses parliamentary and council leverage to force meaningful TfL engagement, and sets concrete implementation timelines rather than extending consultation processes endlessly.

The traffic crisis affects thousands of daily Putney journeys and continues not because technical solutions don’t exist but because officials accept resistance from transport authorities as insurmountable when they could be developing strategies to overcome regulatory obstacles and force change.

What’s missing isn’t engineering solutions but political will.

If that isn’t achievable with the current crop of councillors, there is a democratic solution. “Everyone knows local elections are coming up,” said one PAG coordinator, “so it’s within their best interest to do something, like now, because people are voting soon.”