Smart Transport

South Fulham traffic scheme: From 87% opposed to 91% in favour – within a year

London river crossing at Wandsworth Bridge. Picture: iStock – ChrisSteer

When is a low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) not an LTN? The South Fulham Traffic, Congestion and Pollution Reduction (TCPR) scheme has similar congestion and pollution reduction objectives to the LTNs currently generating controversial headlines in many London boroughs, but it has some important differences in scope and execution.

Astonishingly, the scheme has gone from being opposed by 87% of area residents consulted, to being supported by 91%, in the space of just a year.

While it’s not uncommon for contentious traffic reduction schemes to gain acceptance over a longer period of time, as has happened in boroughs such as Waltham Forest, South Fulham stands out as an example of a scheme which has changed perceptions in an unusually short timescale.

Anatomy of a TCPR

The TCPR scheme covers an area of around 0.3 miles adjoining Wandsworth Bridge Road (see map). The bridge is a key river crossing into central London used by commuters from Surrey and Hampshire as well as locals.

The closure of other nearby bridges and growing use of sat-navs and route planning apps increased traffic on residential streets and congestion on the high street. It prompted the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to make an experimental traffic order in July 2020, prohibiting non-local traffic from crossing a number of “virtual gates” on most residential streets to the east of Wandsworth Bridge Road.

In contrast to the bollards and wooden planters that have come to typify residential low-traffic neighbourhoods, the South Fulham TCPR is enforced by eight cameras with automatic numberplate recognition technology. A fine of £65 is issued to any vehicle passing a camera if it is not registered to an address in the borough.

In addition to residents’ vehicles, emergency services, black taxicabs, council vehicles and some service providers are excluded from the controls.

The scheme is designed so delivery and trade vehicles can access streets without crossing the cameras, albeit less directly. Residents are also able to obtain daily permits for visitors, using parking app RingGo.

The total cost of implementing the scheme was £24,000.

Backlash, then...

Initial public response to the scheme was strongly negative, fuelled by a perception that congestion had increased and concerns that signage relating to the cameras was easily missed and difficult to interpret.

One national newspaper headline read:

“Hammersmith and Fulham chiefs expand spy camera scheme to snare ‘outsider’ motorists in latest war on cars in the capital”.

The area’s MP branded the scheme “disastrous” and organised a petition calling for its removal which received more than 5,000 signatures.

It also transpired that Uber drivers were refusing to drop off passengers in the area covered by the scheme for fear of incurring a fine, prompting concerns over the safety of women travelling home at night.

Consultation, then acceptance

After carrying out a consultation exercise via web platform Commonplace and leaflet drops, the council created three focus groups of 20-30 residents and business owners, covering the area west of the main road not included in the scheme, the main road, and the TCPR area to the east.

A number of engagement events were also held with residents’ groups, and there were separate attempts to address the issues raised by Uber customers with the ride-hire company directly.

The council’s messaging stressed the differences between a TCPR and an LTN, particularly the low impact on emergency services vehicles and local residents. Also, it took a relaxed attitude to initial breaches of the TCPR area, refunding many of the fines received by drivers.

A key moment in the public perception of the scheme occurred in summer 2021, when the most high-profile local residents’ group shifted from opposing the scheme to supporting it. Subsequently, a joint letter supporting an extension of the scheme to more streets in the area was co-signed by five local residents’ groups. These groups have also begun campaigning for enhancements to the pedestrian and cycling environment on the main road in the area, and encouraging local residents to come forward with their own ideas for reducing traffic.

Encouraging results

Traffic monitoring was undertaken throughout the scheme and a network of additional air quality sensors was installed across the area.

The results showed that traffic reduced by an average of 75% on residential streets in the scheme and 12% on the main road.

An average of 8,000 fewer vehicles per day crossed Wandsworth Bridge and there was an improvement in air quality across the borough. Compliance with the TCPR zone also increased to 99% from an initial level of 50%.

As yet, there is no independent analysis of the scheme. Unlike most LTNs or ‘school streets’ initiatives, the TCPR does not aim to encourage mode shift to walking and cycling within the local population and no statistics on this have been shared.

There have also been concerns expressed that the monitoring and evaluation is inaccurate due to the effects of Covid-19 restrictions, although adjustments have been applied for this.

As well as making the temporary aspects of the scheme permanent and expanding it to more residential streets, there are plans to enhance the environment on the area’s main road for walking and cycling.

Among the many traffic schemes introduced during the pandemic, the Hammersmith & South Fulham TCPR stands out as an example of one that rapidly gained traction and acceptance, thanks to a comprehensive programme of consultation and stakeholder engagement, a light touch approach and rapid, tangible benefits for local residents. The transferability of the scheme to other areas may be uncertain, but for a residential area suffering from large volumes of rat-running traffic, it could serve as useful inspiration.

Comment as guest

Login  /  Register


  • Doug - 09/03/2022 10:39

    What is you source of information for this article? I ask as this is not the experience of thousands of people who have fought the council on this? This seems to be s lobbying article written on behalf of the Council. The Council Leader has been a disaster and is causing misery by erecting a Berlin Wall. They have done this by using appalling non transparent tactics. Do you know that both Council Leaders were deselected and LTN’s removed in Ealing and Hounslow? The same is required in Fulham. The Hammersmith Bridge needs to reopen and those in leadership. journalism, or and lobbying need to address the disastrous effects that misguided planning permissions and dubious liaisons with property developers are creating.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Caroline - 05/05/2022 17:34

    I am so sorry this is absolutely not true. The Commonplace survey results are not to be believed. The people who were in favour of the scheme emailed and WhatsApped their friends and told them to get on to Commonplace in September 2021. There are about 24 consecutive entries where people people put their location as High Street, My High Street, Our High Street. The Wandsworth Bridge Road has never been known as a High Street. Many others said their location as work. We visited 25 businesses who were all against the scheme. 889 people said they wanted the scheme removed. 46 were not sure and 243 said yes. The 243 were mainly in September 2021. Please check your facts and rewrite the article.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Jeremy - 06/05/2022 07:38

    91% acceptance? Are you talking about the absolute anomaly sept 21 result which was rigged by campaigners. Lbhf won’t release actual numbers but overriding sentiment is against the scheme

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Jeremy - 06/05/2022 07:41

    Furthermore the “high profile residents group” was wbra… had precisely 4 members in it… talk about bad journalism…

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Pete - 13/05/2022 09:36

    Could this article cite and link to the sources in the headline? Want to be sure we're comparing like-with-like. Seems good journalistic practice and keeps the discussion level)

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register

Office Address
  • Smart Transport
    Media House
    Lynch Wood
    PE2 6EA
Join the community
  • Register to receive our digital content / products and service / information about our events.
  • Register now.
  • Conference


Welcome to Smart Transport

Welcome to the Smart Transport website, keeping you up-to-date with the latest news, insight and reports from policymakers and thought leaders.

The Smart Transport brand connects policy to solutions by bringing national government and local authority policymakers together with private sector organisations.

Contact Ernest Olaseinde for more information.

© Bauer Consumer Media Ltd
Media House, Lynch Wood, Peterborough, PE2 6EA - Registered number 01176085 IPSO regulated logo


Smart Transport members

Smart Transport board members


Please note:
By submitting any material to us you are confirming that the material is your own original work or that you have permission from the copyright owner to use the material and to authorise Bauer Consumer Media to use it as described in this paragraph. You also promise that you have permission from anyone featured or
referred to in the submitted material to it being used by Bauer Consumer Media. If Bauer Consumer Media receives a claim from a copyright owner or a person
featured in any material you have sent us, we will inform that person that you have granted us permission to use the relevant material and you will be responsible for paying any amounts due to the copyright owner or featured person and/or for reimbursing Bauer Consumer Media for any losses it has suffered as a result.