Over 1,700 residents told Wandsworth’s transport committee last night that Putney Bridge junction still doesn’t work, they want new designs looked at immediately, and they want to know why they’ve spent 18 months in gridlock – and the council responded by marvelling at pedestrian increases, sharing single-person anecdotes, and offering vague timelines with no completion date.
The Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee heard survey evidence showing 91% of residents report worse journeys through the £1 million junction redesign – including 77% of cyclists, 80% of pedestrians, and 92% of bus users. The evidence came through two surveys: 763 responses collected by Putney.news and over 1,000 by the Putney Action Group.
Transport for London, whose failure to implement approved signal timings caused the crisis, declined to attend.
How councillors responded
With survey evidence from over 1,700 residents delivered, Cllr Annamarie Critchard – who declared membership in the London Cycling Campaign – opened by asking about the 50% of Wandsworth households without cars and the significant number of cyclists using the junction.
It was an extraordinary first question. The paper concerns emergency measures costing taxpayers £169,000 to address traffic chaos caused by signal timing failures. And Critchard, who says she has never driven over Putney Bridge – she lives in Balham – wanted to talk non-car transport.
Council transport lead Henry Cheung obliged, talking about “strong presence of cycling” and vehicle use being “pretty much stagnant” – though the council’s own data shows vehicles represent 80-84% of junction users whilst cyclists are 4-6%.
Cllr Tony Belton repeatedly suggested waiting for all changes before reviewing the junction. One problem: no timeline exists for completion. Work through February is outlined, but “further optioneering work” depends on modelling and Transport for London approval. The junction runs at 70-80% capacity, Cheung said, meaning limited room for gains without significant changes.
Belton’s suggestion amounts to: wait indefinitely, then review.
Later, the Wandsworth Cycling Campaign representative spoke about how much nicer she personally finds the junction – an anecdote given equal weight to surveys showing 77% of 51 resident cyclists report worse journeys.
When discussing plans to remove a cyclists’ left turn costing 15 seconds per signal cycle but seeing “relatively modest” use – meaning almost zero – Critchard expressed concern. Cheung had spent the meeting discussing grabbing back 4 seconds here, 2 seconds there through optimisation. Yet 15 seconds per cycle allocated to a turn no one uses went largely unquestioned. Because they happened to be on a bicycle and not in a car. Theoretically at least; again, no one is actually using those 15 seconds in a gridlocked junction.
Critchard suggested that increased pedestrian numbers would be good for foot traffic and local businesses – apparently unaware of the actual state of Putney High Street.
A Putney Action Group representative pushed back hard, giving examples of businesses that have closed because traffic is so bad. It may have been the only moment councillors confronted the realities of what Putney is facing rather than their theories about what should be happening.
The few who pushed back
Cllr John Locker was the exception throughout – notably, the only member of the 10-member committee who actually represents Putney, despite Cllr Matthew Tiller’s weak claim to be “a lifelong resident of SW15” (he lives in Roehampton).
Locker asked why residents received no warnings about congestion when the scheme was approved in September 2023. He pressed on modelling failures. He asked about smart detection systems that would prevent another five seconds every cycle from being wasted because the system has – again – been set up for cyclists that don’t exist.
The feature reduces overall junction capacity by approximately 8 to 12 percent. Smart technology would note there were no cyclists there and so not run for the extra five seconds. So why were we not using it, or commissioning it, or even talking about it? His question went unanswered. Lockers emphasised that residents “felt like they had to grab us to get our attention” on the junction’s problems.
And he raised Transport for London’s absence: “What can this committee do to try and improve the working relationship with TfL and to get their buy-in and commitment to these improvements, to get them done as quickly as possible so that the residents of Putney see the benefits?”
The question drew applause from the public gallery but no concrete answer.
Cllr Leonie Cooper pushed for “clear timelines and notices if things are delayed” and pointed to an early December meeting as the next checkpoint.
But her and Locker were outnumbered by councillors content to discuss pedestrian counts and cycling infrastructure whilst residents presented evidence of system-wide failure.
What residents asked for
The survey evidence was unambiguous: 82% don’t believe proper consultation occurred before construction, 89% didn’t know about the CYCLOPS junction design TfL rejected, and 99% want action rather than accepting the situation. Half want the council to revisit whether better designs are now possible.
Fran Odedra, speaking for the Putney Action Group representing over 1,000 members, told councillors: “For more than a year, residents have been warning that the new Putney Bridge Junction would worsen congestion. When works began in September 24, the immediate gridlock proved those warnings right. That dismissal of community concerns is why the Putney Action Group was formed.”
She described the human cost: “I quote, my street is now overwhelmed by idling traffic and morning rat running. I used to cycle my children to school, but now it’s too dangerous. Second quote, I missed a life-saving chemotherapy appointment because I was trapped in traffic for hours. Buses terminate early, the district line fails constantly, and taxis refuse to come to Putney. This is daily life.”
“Putney is not interested in blame anymore, or who approved what,” Odedra said. “Blame will not open Hammersmith Bridge. Blame will not fix the junction or clean our air. Residents want solutions, transparency and action.” She was met with a round of applause in the public gallery.
PAG asked for three commitments: an independent review, ongoing community engagement, and coordinated regional planning across affected boroughs. The committee was also asked to establish a Task & Finish Group to investigate what went wrong, define success using journey times residents can verify rather than models alone, ensure proper consultation before further changes, and establish clear escalation if current fixes don’t work.
It gave nothing. The committee took no votes and made no commitments beyond supporting the work outlined in the paper amid a vague promise to improve communications.
Correction, 11am: In an earlier version of this article we noted that the recollection of a single bike user was given equal weight to all the bicycle users who have been surveyed in the two surveys by PAG and Putney.news. We originally stated that ‘77% of 763 resident cyclists’ had report worse journeys as result of the redesign. In fact, 763 is the number of total respondents and the number of residents who identified themselves as predominantly cyclists was 51. We have updated the article to reflect this.
We also added the fact that PAG rep Fran received a round of applause after her speech having been prodded in the comments below to do so.
How immensely frustrating but as long as cyclists are ok and people who don’t use Putney Bridge ever, are in charge, nothing will improve.
The only way things will change is if we vote these incompetent Labour councillors out in May.