Good for you, good for Merton!
In partnership with Merton Active Travel, we met with Cllr Stuart Neaverson (Labour, and the current Cabinet Member for Transport and Cleaner Streets), and with Cllr Anthony Fairclough (leader of the Merton Liberal Democrats).
We talked with each of them about cycling and active travel, and you can watch a short video of each of them talking about their plans :
Cllr Stuart Neaverson:
Cllr Anthony Fairclough:
You may have seen us out locally handing out flyers to cyclists in the morning, to get momentum behind London Cycling Campaign's efforts to put cycling front-and-centre of the local elections. We've been busy lobbying local candidates to get them to pledge to build a safe cycle network in Merton.
We're also working with Merton Active Travel.
You can help by contacting the party leaders - we've made this super-easy - just visit
https://action.lcc.org.uk/streets
Regrettably, our Winter Solstice Ride scheduled for Sun Jan 4th is CANCELLED due to expected adverse weather conditions (sub-zero temperatures).
Sorry folks!
Merton's Cycling and Walking Strategy has been long (too long) in the making, but it's now in the consultation phase for 6 weeks starting 24th October 2025.
Please take a look and complete the consultation survey. We'll be publishing our thoughts on it soon!
The strategy document is here:
The strategy document and consultation can be viewed here:
https://merton-walking-cycling.commonplace.is/
|
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?
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.