Healthy Streets Scorecard - 2025

 The 2025 London Healthy Streets Scorecards have been released, which cover progress during the previous year. What do Merton's results say?

https://www.healthystreetsscorecard.london/results/your_borough/merton/

Sustainable mode share slipped from 62.6 % in 2024 to 61.9 % in 2025. 

People cycling 1x a week fell sharply from 13.7 % to 11.1 %.

Walking rates improved slightly from 34.1 % to 34.9 % people walking 5x a week.

The proportion of households without a car rose from 29.7 % to 31.5 % 

Protected cycle track provision has slipped from 3.6 % to 3.5 % of road length, and Bus priority length stayed at 14.5 %. 

School Streets coverage dipped from 40.5 % to 39.2 % of schools. Merton claims to be committed to school streets, but this result says otherwise.

The number of low-traffic neighbourhoods is unchanged. 

Our view is that over the past few years, Merton's approach to highways has not been working. It has failed to make credible bids for LIP funding (the main source of funding for cycling improvements), hence provision of protected cycle tracks and low-traffic neighbourhoods remaining static. Merton is one of London's most congested boroughs , and has the biggest decline in bus speeds of any London borough over the last decade. It is home to 2 of the top 5 worst bus services in London (93 and 154), based on passenger compaints. Yet there has been no new investment in bus priority (Bus priority length stayed at 14.5 % of road length). We recently enquired what work is being done on Merton bus priority schemes and what schemes Merton may bid for in the next year - and have received no response. 

These facts are all inter-related. Congestion affects bus service speed and reliability, and the failure to tackle traffic in residential areas with school streets or low-traffic neighbourhoods, coupled with the failure to expand protected cycle tracks, means cycling is less attractive.

While the proportion of car-free households is going in the right direction, this may be due to financial pressures rather than the quality of sustainable transport options. Thus if cost-of-living pressures reduce, this progress could easily reverse. 

Poor bus services and a failure to make cycling safer means the car remains the default transport mode for many people. This in turn drives up traffic, making bus services worse and cycling less attractive. And of course more traffic and more congestion is bad for everyone: cyclists, bus users, car users, and businesses. Yet there seems no sense of urgency at Merton Council to address a transport situation that is clearly getting worse as a consequence of them sitting on their hands. This really cannot continue. And it need not: funding is available from TfL to invest in the cycle network, traffic reduction and bus priority.

Merton actually has a lot going for it in terms of historical legacy. It has a significant number of very popular low-traffic neighbourhoods and it was an early adopter of School Streets. Parts of it have very good public transport: Tramlink, great connections from Wimbledon mainline station, and 2 tube lines. It wouldn't take that much to leverage those assets better so that areas with lower public transport access level (PTAL) are better-connected with the light-rail, heavy-rail and underground networks. Such connections would include cycling (including the increasingly popular hire bikes), and a faster and more reliable bus network. Why should good transport options be the sole preserve of the west of the borough?

 

New Martin Way Crossing

 

There's a new zebra crossing on Martin Way at the junction with Mostyn Road. Normally more crossings is a good thing, but not when they are designed like this.

Martin Way has a long history of poor design putting cyclists at risk. This is the latest example.

The crossing is on the crest of a hill, so cyclists coming from both directions will have been slowed by the gradient. This encourages motorists to overtake, into the pinch point caused by the central island. Many motorists "tailgate" each other, driving too close to the vehicle in front to have a clear view of the whole road in front. Their vision thus impaired, they are unlikely to see either a cyclist to the left of the vehicle in front or the island. When the vehicle in front of them overtakes the cyclist, they just follow, and don't see the island until too late, at which point they cut in dangerously. 

As a cyclist, you can "take primary" and ride in the centre of the lane, but be prepared to be honked at. Many cyclists are conditioned - very understandably - to riding too far left in the lane by motorist intimidation, even though this position is less safe.

Why is there a central island? There is no need, and it just makes the crossing more complex and expensive, as well as making it less safe for cyclists. The central island, the extra belisha beacon and the keep-left signs add a lot of cost.  (Yes there was an island there before but it's been completely replaced: widened, dot-paving added, one lamp standard removed, a belisha added, and both keep-left signs relocated.)

Previously, there was an informal crossing with a perch-point too narrow for buggies, wheelchairs etc.The council have been forced to upgrade it. If they'd put in a zebra in the first place, we would've been safer and would not be paying twice for one crossing. Informal crossings are little use for children, partially-sighted, older, less mobile and many disabled people. There's no requirement on motorists to give way, and on a busy road like Martin Way, you can guess what happens - few actually do, and users are given a choice between chancing crossing when they can dance between vehicles, or waiting significant time at the polluted roadside for an adequate gap in the traffic.

So an informal crossing on this road was always the wrong choice. But the new 2-stage crossing is also the wrong choice, being more expensive and less safe than a single-stage crossing. 

TfL LIP funding allocations 2025

The  Transport for London (TfL) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) program is the mechanism by which local boroughs including Merton receive funding from TfL

 The LIP funding allocations from Transport for London for 2025-2026 have been issued.

 Here's the letter TfL sent to Merton: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/merton-lip-letter-2025-26.pdf

Unfortunately the allocation received by Merton is disappointingly small. 

Only £90K for  Cycleways Network Development (CND). This indicates a failure to bid for any major schemes.

£0 for Safer Streets

£0 for  Liveable Neighbourhoods

£100K for Bus Priority. We are not aware of any planned schemes so it seems likely this is just for feasibility/design. Bear in mind that according to London Travelwatch's report The Next Step: Making London's Buses Better, Merton has the WORST deterioration in bus speeds of ANY London borough.

This is not that surprising given Merton's failure to invest in cycling and failure to address congestion or motor traffic domination. Bus journeys get slower and less reliable as congestion rises, meaning more people opt to use a car, which makes congestion worse still. You would think that being bottom of the table would shake Merton out of its complacency, but the lack of planned schemes or any real strategy suggests Merton has been asleep at the wheel.

£929K for Safer Corridors and Neighbourhoods (SCN) 

This might look like a success but in fact the amounts for this funding stream are calculated using a formula, rather than being discretionary. In principle this stream can include modal filters, school streets and other traffic-reduction measures, but we're not aware of any such schemes being proposed in 25/26. As traffic reduction is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to improve streets for cycling, this absence is very disappointing.

There is funding for parking ( Micromobility Parking £94K, Cycle Parking £65K) which is welcome, but alone these won't drive increased cycling,  and putting inexperienced cyclists onto a dangerous cycle network is a recipe for casualties and near misses, which means new cyclists are more likely to quit.

 In summary the failure of Merton to secure discretionary funding from TfL to improve the cycle network is not acceptable. Other boroughs are doing much better - Merton received half the average allocation. And this is part of a pattern: Merton fails year after year to put credible bids together. 

Cycle Hire Parking - BIG CHANGES in Merton

 Merton Council is formalising parking of hire bikes (Lime, Forest, etc.). Soon, users will be forced to park in one of the marked bays around the borough, and cannot simply park the bike in a location convenient to them that is not obstructive to other street users.

We note there's been no consultation on this decision, and we were not asked for our views. There is, however, consultation on the bays (because highway changes require statutory consultation). Materials and email address for comments can be found here:

https://www.merton.gov.uk/streets-parking-transport/cycling/hire/overview 

We tend to think that having formal bays in high-demand locations where there have been problems with bike parking will help ensure a more orderly and less cluttered public realm. But it is important that safety and convenience for hire bike users is not sacrificed unnecessarily. Bays need to cater to demand and be located close to where user journeys end. Bays should be on-carriageway both to avoid additional pavement clutter, and to avoid users having to mount pavements. Restricting users to marked bays in less busy locations seems like an overreach. At this point our recommendation is that, similarly to car parking, parking on the carriageway should generally be permitted in residential areas.

 

Raynes Park centre is a high-demand location with many people using hire bikes to get to the station. Most park in the plaza facing Coombe Lane. Looking at the bays, there are none at all in the plaza. 

 

 

There nearest bays that are planned are: 

1. "Wyke Road" -junction with Pepys Rd - capacity about 8 bikes

2. "Coombe Lane" - by the Skew Arch- capacity about 11 bikes

3. "Grand Drive" - at the Grand Drive/Approach Road junction, opposite the Cattle Arch/station entrance -- capacity about 13 bikes

(We are assuming 600mm of bay width per bike, which assumes bikes are parked quite closely; this may be optomistic).

All these bays are off-carriageway.

The problem with all of these bays is they are in the wrong place for a lot of station users. For #1 and #2, for users coming from the west, they have to cross the very dangerous RP Bridge junction to get to the bays, and then cross again on foot. And they are going a total of 300m out of their way. For a return journey, that's over half a kilometer extra.

#3 is a reasonable location for users coming along Kingston Rd or Grand Dr, but not useful for users approaching on the north side of the station. Cycling isn't permitted through the Cattle Arch, and the alternative - going round via Raynes Park Bridge - is dangerous and involves significant extra time/distance. We note with disappointment that there is still no proposal to fix the road-danger issues with Raynes Park Bridge/Coombe Lane junction (poor sight-lines, no formal crossing, etc.), despite forcing hire-bike users to use this crossing.

 

 

Now let's look at Morden centre:

 

 

There is a SINGLE bay - "London Rd" - which is outside Crown House, requiring users to cross the 3-lane Crown Lane gyratory to access it.

Nothing outside Sainsbury's, or Lidl/Iceland. Nothing on the main part of London Rd where all the shops are, or on Abbotsbury Rd. This really isn't good enough.