By all accounts, Putney should be a transport success story. Two Tube stations, a mainline rail service straight into Waterloo, bus routes in every direction, a major road artery in the South Circular, and even a riverboat that glides all the way into central London.
And yet, what is the biggest concern among residents right now? The traffic is so bad that people are talking about leaving.
This isn’t a problem of poor infrastructure. It’s a problem of ideology overtaking reality.
Through the lens of Sadiq Khan’s City Hall and a Labour-run Wandsworth Council, the issue isn’t poor planning, slow junctions or broken crossings — it’s that people are still using cars at all. And since appeals to conscience and punitive charges haven’t stopped that, the answer appears to be: charge more.
Charging cars
The latest Congestion Charge proposals are a perfect example. Electric vehicles were once hailed as the future — now they’re part of the problem. The Mayor wants to hit them with daily charges, and make annual increases automatic, with no further public consultation. This isn’t about managing traffic anymore; it’s about enforcing a worldview.
Even Zipcar — one of London’s most popular car-sharing schemes — has gone public to warn that things are going too far. The company, which provides short-term access to vehicles as an alternative to car ownership, says the new charges will push up its prices and force a cut in vehicle availability, including electric ones. A solution to private car ownership in a big city — is it now seen as a problem simply because it offers cars at all?
For years, claims that City Hall was anti-car were dismissed as paranoia or populist noise. But how else do you explain what’s happening?
Hammersmith Bridge: six years and counting
This is a critical Thames crossing — closed to vehicles for over six years. Every party agrees it needs fixing. But while Wandsworth Council, Hammersmith & Fulham Council, central government and even TfL pass the buck, nothing happens. There is no sense of urgency because the dominant ideology doesn’t view car access as a priority.
Putney Bridge junction: a design in denial
The redesigned Putney Bridge junction was meant to promote cycling and calm traffic. Instead, it’s caused gridlock so severe that residents on side roads are choking on fumes, and simply crossing the high street can take 30 minutes. The council’s baffling response? “We’ll review the traffic light timing in a few months.”
This is the clearest sign yet that officials have lost all sympathy for people stuck in traffic — literally or metaphorically. When you see the car as the enemy, those trapped in congestion are not victims — they’re the problem.
Buses you can’t rely on, and a system that won’t admit it
Buses should be the answer — but anyone who uses them in Putney knows they barely move during peak hours. TfL, however, still insists service is fine because it relies on outdated models and metrics. When challenged, it shuts down.
TfL failed to send a representative to a recent Putney Society meeting all about buses, and skipped a meeting called by the local MP and councillors. This is not an organisation ready to listen — and certainly not one we should depend on if we’re being asked to give up private transport.
Yes to bikes — but with some realism
Cycling has to be part of the solution. But even here, we need honesty. If more people are cycling (and they are), then we may need to reintroduce cycling proficiency training. Some of what’s happening on the roads right now isn’t safe — not for cyclists, pedestrians, or drivers.
Cars aren’t going away — and they’re not all the same. People use them to get to hospital appointments, to pick up kids, to carry tools for work, to visit elderly relatives, or simply because they can’t bike five miles in the rain with shopping bags.
Putney shows what happens when that reality is ignored. You get one of the best-connected places in London — where buses crawl, cyclists dodge between gridlocked vehicles, and pollution levels rise. Because instead of managing traffic, the priority has become to make life with a car intolerable.
We need cleaner air. We need fewer cars. But we also need planners and politicians who are willing to engage with reality, not impose ideology from above.
What do you think? Has London’s traffic policy gone too far — or not far enough? Let us know in the comments below.
Rather a strange article, spoilt by its pro-car basis, claiming that TfL is gripped by a supposed anti-car bias but unable to grasp the overall need to reduce our reliance on the car: it “isn’t about managing traffic anymore; it’s about enforcing a worldview.” Well, yes, and an important one: because of the global emergency, which isn’t even mentioned in the article. The vital need is to reduce our reliance on the car; instead, unwittingly, it refers to “When you see the car as the enemy, those trapped in congestion are not victims — they’re the problem.” Well, precisely: we get stuff about “people stuck in traffic” when they are the traffic!
The sub-headline refers to cycle lanes as if they are a problem, but there’s nothing in the piece to back this up. Instead, it recognises that “Cycling has to be part of the solution” but repeats the usual excuses that “people use them to get to hospital appointments, to pick up kids, to carry tools for work, to visit elderly relatives, or simply because they can’t bike five miles in the rain with shopping bags” without any recognition that, for example, many cycling trips are much less than 5 miles and it doesn’t always rain.
And buses! Why are buses held up, do you think? There are too many cars blocking the roads! It accepts that “we need fewer cars” yet offers nothing to do it. But at least we should be grateful that it doesn’t mention that ludicrous trope, “The war on the motorist.”