TfL responds to questions from our steering group

Following a meeting on 22nd May in Tulse Hill with Thomas Holmes (Lead Sponsor, Safe and Healthy Streets, TfL) and Claire Alleguen (Local Engagement Manager, Local Communities and Partnerships, TfL), we submitted a letter setting out a number of questions arising from our discussions during the meeting.

Transport for London (TfL) has responded to those questions but offered little in terms of concessions.

Their summary is that there’s no TfL Budget funding allocated to move the gyratory project forward and no plans to carry out local engagement or consultation, no agreed project timeline beyond April 2027 when the six-month contracts for the VivaCity sensors will end, and disappointingly there now appears to be no firm commitment to transformation or gyratory removal. This is particularly disappointing as a document setting out a a number of options for the gyratory was created by TfL in February 2025, which we were given acccess to following a Freedom of Information request.

However, their response contains several admissions that strengthen our position and could help the campaign.

1. TfL has admitted in writing that full gyratory removal could be a ‘long-term goal, perhaps in twenty or more years.’
2. There’s no budget for this project. No funds are allocated for 2026/27. A budget line for the 27/28 Budget will only be considered for inclusion during the Autumn 2026 Budget setting process. Even the Vivacity sensor data collection is funded from a general pot and not a specific Tulse Hill allocation. It’s likely this will run out after the period, so will all the gyratories’ monitoring sensors be removed with no futher monitoring, let alone enforcement? This is still unclear.
3. Tulse Hill scored 58 out of 100 on TfL’s gyratory prioritisation tool, ranking 7th out of 13. This is mid-table, not bottom. We now have a number to interrogate, though TfL hasn’t provided the breakdown or told us which six schemes ranked above us.
4. TfL admitted that no speed surveys were ever conducted at the gyratory when the 20mph limit was introduced. The nearest measurements were 500m away and, in their own words, ‘will not be representative.’ They set a speed limit at their seventh most dangerous gyratory (according to data) but until the Vivacity sensor data becomes avaible in late 2027, have no way to check how the speed limit on the roads around Tulse Hill are being obeyed.
5. Their own collision data shows 22 casualties in three years on the three arms where no safery works have been done. Yet TfL states the risk there is ‘not materially different’ from comparable London locations. That claim is contradicted by their own numbers.

Our request for quarterly liaison meetings with Transform Tulse Hill, local residents and businesses were refused due to ‘limited resources and the lack of discussion points until data collection ends in mid-2027.’

A public project webpage to keep people in the area informed was also declined. Our ask for TfL to carry out co-design with local people on any potential (modelled on the 2016 Streetworks process where options were developed with the people who live and work in the area) received only warm words without any concrete commitments for this kind of collaborative process to take place again.

The potential for the installation of countdown timers at pedestrian crossings to be explored will not be investigated despite a TfL representative in our meeting with them suggesting they could be investigated as an immediate action.

Transform Tulse Hill has written back to TfL, suppported by our local Lambeth councillors to seek further clarification on a number of these points, and when responses are recieved, an update will be published on this website.

If TfL genuinely believes full transformation is twenty years away, interim and temporary safety measures on the three untouched arms are a necessity, not an optional extra.

However, the response offers almost nothing about them. Further interventions will only be “considered” as part of a development timeline lacking funding and no dates beyond April 2027.

There’s no assessment of immediate actions, no reference to lower-cost measures, and no mention of joint efforts with Lambeth. A twenty-year horizon without an interim programme isn’t a plan; it’s a decision to leave a dangerous junction unsafe.

The Commissioner’s letter cited “early indications of reduced collisions” on the western arm. However, the actual data shows five casualties in 2023, six in 2024, and three in 2025. This represents a year of improvement on a small number of incidents, but TfL’s own methodology requires three years of data for a reliable assessment. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of all casualties over those three years occurred on the untouched arms,

TfL now distinguishes between “road safety schemes” funded from its own Business Plan (Highbury Corner and Lambeth Bridge South) and economic growth schemes requiring third-party funding (Vauxhall and Waterloo). They also state that “proposals improving safety at the gyratory would take priority” for TfL funding.

Our entire case hinges on safety. If Highbury Corner qualifies for Business Plan funding as a road safety scheme and TfL’s stated priority at Tulse Hill is safety, the question is simple: why isn’t Tulse Hill being treated and funded as a safety scheme?

We anticipated both the SL6 and SL15 Superloop services would serve the gyratory from 2027 and requested specific start dates, but these haven’t been confirmed yet.

We received a named single point of contact Claire Alleguen. A comprehensive VivaCity sensor specification covering all four arms, including near-miss analysis, installation in September 2026, with the full dataset available in spring 2027.

We also received interim scheme collision data, the prioritisation score and ranking for Tulse Hill, a promise to address the bus driver toilet facility issue with operators, and the Norwood Road pavement closure was passed to their permitting team – a holding response at best.

It seems TfL is managing us rather than partnering with us. While the tone is polite, they’ve effectively hinted they don’t see the need to meet us again until mid-2027. Their substance is deferral: everything will go through the data collection exercise ending late spring 2027, an Outcome Definition stage starting April 2027, and budget decisions this autumn when the data won’t be available, making allocation unlikely.

They’ve now documented more information than ever before. This includes the new twenty-year horizon for transformation and renewal, the 58/100 score for the gyratory, the missing post-implementation 20mph speed surveys, the untouched-arms casualty data and the lack of plans for these areas of the gyratory and the road safety-versus-growth funding distinction. Each of these is new information we didn’t have a month ago.

The London Plan and the Lambeth Plan are being renewed. This might be an area of focus for us as they cover long-term periods.

The collision data report we produced showed a significant decrease after 20mph (2024) with similar trends for the first three-quarters of 2025. More collision data is now available, but under-reporting is evidenced and most likely biased towards motor vehicle crashes. The vivacity data and its analysis will be crucial in building a case.

It’s surprising that bus priority funding allocation isn’t being considered. We believe there’s more opportunity for funding there and the area is clearly being looked at with the Lambeth consultations funded by TFL.

Personnel will change over the next few years. We’ll likely have a new mayor and new officers. We also have a new prime minister who has delivered some good stuff in Manchester. So priorities will change and develop.