Routes 350 and U5 swap between Hayes and Stockley Park

Consultation Report January 2017

Contents

Executive summary ...... 3 1. About the proposals ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 8 3. About the respondents ...... 12 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 15 5. Next steps ...... 23 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ...... 24 Appendix B: Stakeholder List ...... 29 Appendix C: Copy of customer email ...... 34 Appendix D: Copy of stakeholder email ...... 35 Appendix E: Bus stop poster ...... 36

2 Executive summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on the following scheme: proposal to swap routes 350 and U5 between Hayes and Stockley Park.

Between 30 September and 11 November 2016, we consulted on these proposals. We received 302 responses to the consultation (including six responses from local stakeholders), of those which answered the questions 26 per cent supported or partially supported our proposals and 61 per cent opposed or opposed most elements. The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Appendix A.

Summary of issues raised during consultation The majority of respondents were either opposed, or opposed elements, of our proposal to change the routes of the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes. The detailed comments on the scheme indicated that the key concern was the reduction in frequency and capacity on route 350 rather than the swapping of the routes.

The main issues were frustrations that the proposals did not address the perceived capacity concerns on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor. Respondents were concerned that the reduction would further exacerbate capacity issues from Hayes to Stockley Park.

Another key issue was the feeling it would make access to Heathrow (especially for night time shift workers) more problematic with longer overall journey times due to the wait between buses. There were concerns that it would encourage greater car use and add to the congestion in and around the airport.

Of those that commented on the introduction of double deck buses to the U5, the majority were in favour of the extra capacity this would deliver.

There were numerous requests for us to increase the frequency of either or both routes in the peak periods, especially on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor.

Next steps After considering all responses, we plan to proceed with the scheme as proposed.

3 We will commit to close monitoring of the capacity levels of the U5, after the service change on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor, to assess whether demand justifies an increase in capacity.

4 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction From December 2019, a direct Elizabeth line service (formally referred to as Crossrail) to Central and East London will run from , , Hayes and Harlington, and Heathrow. Overall, demand around Elizabeth line stations within the London Borough of Hillingdon is expected to increase significantly on some corridors. The bus network needs to reflect and respond to these changes. We have reviewed bus routes serving Elizabeth line stations in the area, to make sure that services can match future travel demand in the best way possible.

1.2 Purpose We strive to provide a network that has sufficient capacity at the busiest point at the busiest times but also builds in additional capacity on those corridors where we anticipate growth in demand. However, we need to provide any enhancements in a cost effective way. The purpose of this scheme is to transfer the busiest section of the route 350 to the route U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes and Harlington station. This would allow one route to serve all the busy sections on both the U5 and 350. The demand levels would then justify the conversion to a double deck. This would negate the need for an additional journey in the AM peak on the U5 between Porters Way and West Drayton station. It would also allow for savings on the route 350 where demand does not meet capacity outside of the AM peak and for sections west of Stockley Park. The increase in capacity on the U5 would also allow us to meet expected demand growth from the opening of Elizabeth line services in the area.

1.3 Detailed description We proposed to swap routes 350 and U5 between Hayes and Stockley Park:  Route U5 would be re-routed to serve North Hyde Road, Dawley Road and Furzeground Way. Double deck buses will be introduced and the frequency will stay the same  Route 350 would be re-routed to serve Botwell Lane, Botwell Common Road and Furzeground Way. Single deck buses will be introduced and it will run less frequently with a bus every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday during the daytime, and every 30 minutes Sundays and evenings

5  The existing frequency of double-deck services between Hayes and Stockley Park, via North Hyde Road, would not change  The hours of operation, including the early start on the 350, would remain the same Here is a map of the current routes:

6 Here is a map of the proposed routes:

7 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond

 To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the proposals

 To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware

 To understand concerns and objections

 To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

2.3 Who we consulted We sought the views of those customers currently using the routes, along with representatives for a number of key institutions, railway stations and employment destinations along the route. We also consulted stakeholders including the London Borough of Hillingdon, schools and colleges, London TravelWatch, local politicians, and local resident and community groups.

8 2.4 Dates and duration The consultation was open for six weeks between 30 September and 11 November 2016.

2.5 What we asked The questionnaire asked nine generic questions relating to name, age, gender, email address, postcode, organisation name (if responding on behalf of a business/stakeholder/organisation), whether the respondent had a health problem or disability which limited their day to day activities, how they had heard about the consultation, and views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked two questions on the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to provide any comments).

There were five questions specific to the consultation:

 How often do you use the bus routes U5 and 350? Respondents were given a choice of six answers: 5+ days a week, 3 to 4 days a week, 1 to 2 days a week, 1 to 3 times a month, less than once a month, I do not use this route  To what extent do you support or oppose our proposals to change the routes of the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes?  Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the routes 350 and U5? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)  Do you have any additional comments on proposals to introduce double deck vehicles on the route U5? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)  Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the frequency of the 350? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)

2.6 Methods of responding People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond by accessing the online questionnaire; by using our freepost address at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS; or by emailing [email protected]

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We sent out 5,850 emails to registered customers who use the U5 and 350 and we also wrote to 179 stakeholders about the consultation. We displayed posters either on or around bus stops and also sent posters to be displayed in local institutions such as GP surgeries, schools and places of worship.

9 A copy of the email that was sent to customers can be found in Appendix C.

A copy of the stakeholder email can be found in Appendix D.

A copy of the poster can be found in Appendix E.

2.7.1 Website The consultation was available on our consultation website https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-u5-and-350

2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets Our principal method of communcoiation was via customer email and posters at bus stops. However, we also sent letters to frontages along sections of the U5 that would have double deck buses used on them for this first time. We also sent a letter to frontages on York Road and Chippendale Way to notify them of our proposed changes to the bus standing arrangements.

2.7.3 Emails to public We sent an email with a link to the online consultation to registered users of the U5 and 350 bus routes. In total 5,850 emails were sent out.

2.7.4 Emails/letters to stakeholders We sent an email or a letter to stakeholders with a link to the online consultation page. In total 179 communications were sent out. A full list of the stakeholder we contacted can be found in Appendix B.

2.7.5 Press and media activity We issued a press release to the west London local website, Getwestlondon which is the online presence of local hard copy newspapers in the area.

2.7.6 On-site advertising Posters highlighting the consultation were placed at bus stops along the route where space was available, and on neighbouring lamp coloumns and shelters where there was no space on the bus stop post.

Copies of the poster were also sent to various local institutions along both routes with the request that they were displayed This inlcuded libraries, schools, religious institutions, GP surgeries, railway stations, and lesiure and community centres.

10 2.7.7 Meetings with stakeholders We carried out pre-engagement with London Borough of Hillingdon, sustainable travel team at and the travel consultants for the Stockley Park Travel Planning Group during the planning stages of the consultaton. We also attended a meeitng of the Stockely Park Travel Planning Group just before the launch of the consultation to brief them on the proposals.

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out in-house.

There were four “open” questions (three seeking comments about the proposals and one on the quality of the consultation). A draft coding frame was developed for responses to these questions, which was finalised following review by another member of the team. Two people conducted the tagging exercise and their methodology was audited after the initial 25 repsonses to ensure a consistent approach. There was one duplicate response which was deleted.

11 3. About the respondents

This section contains a profile of the responses from the general public. Please note responses from stakeholders are reported separately under section 4.3.

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total % Public responses 296 98% Stakeholder responses 5 2% Total 301

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation 294 of the 296 answered this question. With over 46 per cent of respondents stating the customer email as the principal way that they heard about the consultation.

How did you hear about this consultation? How did you hear about this Option Total % consultation? - "Other" Received an email from TfL 137 47 "Other" Total % Received a letter from TfL 1 0 Word of mouth Read about in the press 5 2 26 33 Saw it on the TfL website 28 10 Poster at bus stop 32 40 Social media 17 6 Community/workplace Other (please specify) 68 23 22 28 Not Answered 38 13 Total 294 Total 80

3.3 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total % Online 279 95 Email/Post 15 5 Total 294

12 3.4 Profile of respondents We asked a number of questions to profile respondents. Over 40 per cent of respondents were regularly using the U5 and over 65 per cent regularly using the 350. The majority of those responding were male. The most common group to respond were those aged 25-44 and just over 4 per cent of respondents declared a disability that limits their daily activities.

How often do you use these bus routes?

Option U5 % 350 % 5 or more days a week 63 21 132 45

1 to 4 days per week 63 21 73 25 Less frequently than 1 day per week 79 27 36 12

Never 57 19 23 8

Prefer not to say 8 3 9 3 Not applicable (if responding on behalf of an organisation, business or community group) 1 0 2 1

Not Answered 23 8 19 6 Total 294 294

What is your age group?

Age group Number of responses % Under 16 6 2 16-24 37 13 25-44 152 52 45-64 70 24

65-74 9 3 75+ 1 0 Not Answered 19 6 Total 294

13 Are you male or female?

Option Total % Male 171 58 Female 103 35 Not Answered 20 7 Total 294

Do you have a mental or physical disability that limits your daily activities or the work you can do, including any issues due to your age? Option Total % Yes 13 4 No 258 88 Not Answered 23 8 Total 294

14 4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 296 responses from members of the public. Their responses are set out in section 4.1 to 4.4. The five responses from stakeholders are included in section 4.5.

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

4.1.1 Overall support We asked respondents to tell us whether they supported our proposals. 281 out of 294 respondents answered this question.

To what extent do you support or oppose our proposals to change the routes of the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes?

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Support Neither Oppose Don’t Not Support most support most Oppose Not sure know Answered elements or oppose elements Responses 36 42 19 62 117 4 1 13 % 12% 14% 6% 21% 40% 1% 0% 4%

15 4.1.2 Top 10 issues The table below shows the top 10 issues that were raised by respondents across all three free text questions.

Top Ten Issues Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to Heathrow/Piccadilly 71 line Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to Stockley Park 71

Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: General opposition 45

Increase Frequency on 350 37

Support introducing double deck buses on U5 – general 36

Support introducing double deck buses on U5- extra capacity 28

Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to West Drayton 23 Station/Crossrail Oppose re-routing of 350: Longer journey times from T5 to Hayes 22 General opposition 21

Request to keep frequency of 350 as is 21

4.2 Summary of Question 2 We asked respondents to tell us whether they had any comments they would like to make on the proposed changes to routes 350 and U5. A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A. The largest issue raised was that the proposals do not address perceived capacity issues in the peaks on the Hayes to Stockley Park Corridor. It was felt that introducing single deck buses on the route 350 would exacerbate capacity issues. There were calls for an increase in frequency of routes serving the Hayes to Stockley Park Corridor and for us to match bus departures to train arrival times. People were also concerned that the new route for 350 would result in longer journey times to the airport.

16

4.2.1 Issues commonly raised

Issue Total Opposition 20 General opposition 20 Oppose 350 becoming a single decker 41 General opposition to introduction of single deck buses on the route 21

Concerns about adequate capacity in the peaks 20 Concerns about adequate space for luggage 10 Oppose re-routing of routes 350 & U5 40 Longer journey times from T5 to Hayes 22 Keep current routes 7 Concerns about access to Asda 6 Broken journeys to Botwell Green Leisure Centre 4 Broken journeys Dawley Road to Heathrow 1 Other 33 Out of scope of consultation 17 Misunderstood Proposal 9 Concerned about Town Centre stops 4 May cause confusion for current users 3 Support 17 General support 12 Support 350 becoming single deck bus 5 Suggestions 66 General frequency increase on U5 22

Increase frequency in peaks between Hayes & Stockley Park 29

Address timetabling so buses are timed for train arrivals 10

Make 350 double deck in peaks 5

17 4.3 Summary of Question 3 We asked respondents to tell us whether they would like to make any comments on proposals to introduce double deck vehicles on the U5. A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A. The most frequently raised comment was support for introducing double deck buses on the U5 as it would deliver extra capacity on the route.

4.3.1 Issues commonly raised Issue Total Concerns/opposed 10

Concerned about quality of buses used 5

Concerns about adequate road width 4

Suggestion tree cutting may be required 1

Opposed 9 Oppose double deckers on U5: General 9 Support 65 Comments demonstrating general support for introduction of double 37 deck buses Support extra capacity 28 Suggestion 22 Make both routes double deck 12 Double deck only required in AM/PM peak 6 Make U5 more frequent instead of double deck 2

4.4 Summary of Question 4 We asked respondents to tell us whether they would like to make any comments on proposals to change the frequency of the 350. A detailed analysis is available in Appendix A. The most frequently cited issues were this change would have a detrimental effect on journeys to Stockley Park and to Heathrow Airport.

18

4.4.1 Issues commonly raised Oppose decrease in frequency 210 Access to Heathrow/Piccadilly line 71

Access to Stockley Park 71

General opposition 45

Access to West Drayton Station/Crossrail 23 Suggestions 71 Increase Frequency on 350 37

Keep frequency as is 21

Keep Peak Frequency as is 8

Shuttle bus between Hayes and Stockley Park 5

4.5 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Local Authorities London Borough of Hillingdon

The borough confirmed they did not have any objections to our proposed changes to bus routes 350 and U5.

Businesses, employers and venues HAVI

HAVI support most elements of the proposals including the introduction of double deck buses to the U5 but oppose the reduction in frequency of the 350 as they feel more buses not fewer are needed to serve Stockley Park.

19 Heathrow Airport

The airport did not submit a formal response during the consultation period. However, we did carry out pre-engagement with them where they did not think there was anything in the proposal that currently caused them concern. They appreciate that getting more joined up journeys from Elizabeth line services to buses is key to increasing public transport journeys to/from the airport.

They were pleased to note that the early start time of 350 would remain as maintaining the early services was important to them.

IMG Productions

The company oppose the proposals. They are concerned that the reduction in frequency of 350 service to Heathrow from Stockley Park would adversely affect users from their building in Stockely Park. They would welcome further measures to increase capacity between Hayes and Stockley Park as this is grossly overcrowded in the morning.

Stockley Park Travel Planning Group (SPTPG)

This stakeholder represents the businesses based in Stockley Park and works to improve travel planning for employees. They oppose our proposals as they feel they do nothing to address the current issues that are faced by commuters accessing Stockley Park.

The group state that the majority of Stockley Park employees who travel by bus use the 350 as it’s the quickest journey to Stockley Park. However, they note that customers will take whichever of the services arrives first and customers often cross the road to use the U5. They recognise that the U5 under the new proposal would become the quickest route but they are concerned as to what bus stop it would leave from - if the double decker U5 leaves from the stop across the road, then every morning, there would be a lot of people crossing (and sometimes running) across the road to catch the bus.

They strongly disagree on the proposition to have a less frequent 350 service and would recommend keeping the double deck on 350 and adding double decks for the U5 route.

They would also like to see more frequent services for both U5 & 350 especially during peak time (8-10am and 5-7pm) as they feel it is often a battle to get on a bus form the station in the morning. They would also like to see a specific bus for Stockley Park only at peak time.

They are also calling for us to better align the bus and train timetables so that buses depart after the trains arrive. They feel this would help to address wait times and overcrowding the employees currently report.

20 They are also concerned that the opening of the Elizabeth line will also see more people accessing Stockley Park via Hayes Station and the reduction in capacity through the reduction in frequency of the 350 will make it harder to get on a bus in the peak periods.

Local interest groups Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association

The asssociation stated they neither supported or oppposed the proposals. They are concerned about the reduction in frequency between West Drayton and Heathrow Airport and the impact this will have on users in the villages around Heathrow, especially the reduction to the servcies in the evening. They feel a wait time of up to 30 minutes is unacceptable. They would also like to see better alignment of bus departure times with trian arrival times at West Drayton.

Yewsley and West Drayton Town Centre Action Group

Stated they supported the proposals and were pleased that 350 would now terminate at Hayes Asda.

4.6 Comments on the consultation 267 respondents (91%) of respondents provided a comment on the quality of the consultation and associated materials. The majority felt the quality of the consultation was very good or good.

What do you think about the quality of this consultation? 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Not Very good Good Acceptable Poor Very poor Answered Number of 61 107 70 19 10 27 responses % 21% 36% 24% 6% 3% 9%

21

We received 35 comments about the consultation. The main issues rasied were concerning the consultation process with 11 comments concerned that we should have done more to advertise the consultation and five that the decision has already been made so the consultation is a pointless exercise. A further eight felt the rationale for the proposal was poorly explained in the materials.

22 5. Next steps

After considering all responses, we have concluded that there have not been any issues raised that were not considered in the planning of the proposal.

We appreciate that customers are unlikely to support a reduction in frequency of services, however we need to ensure we balance minimising disruption to customers with the need to operate the bus service in a cost effective way.

Currently the 350 is lightly used, except for a mile-long section between Hayes & Harlington Station and Stockley Park in the morning peak. Swapping the routes of the U5 and 350 along this stretch allows us to reduce the frequency on the 350 and replace double with single deck buses to better align capacity with demand, and ensure we are providing services in a cost effective way.

We will commit to close monitoring of the capacity levels of the U5 after the service change on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor to assess whether demand justifies an increase in capacity.

We therefore plan to proceed with our proposal. The service change will be implemented in April 2017.

23 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments

Of the 294 respondents, 217 left comments in the open text fields across questions two, three and four. We have summarised the significant themes below.

Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the route 350 and U5?

General Opposition

There were 20 respondents who objected to the scheme with general comments such as:

 I don't like these changes  Not a great idea  Pointless/unnecessary exercise  The proposed change is degradation of the service  Changes not needed  Maintain current routes  No benefit or improvement to service

Oppose 350 becoming a single deck bus

We received 51 comments opposing the introduction of a single deck bus to the revised 350 route.

There were 21 comments where respondents cited general opposition to the introduction of single deck buses on the route, with comments such as ‘I think it is a mistake’; ‘I strongly oppose changing to single deck vehicle’; and ‘I think there should be double deck buses for both the U5 and the 350’. Where respondents provided further explanation it was typically regarding general concerns about impact on the capacity of the route.

There were a further 20 comments expressing concern that the proposals would result in inadequate capacity in the peak periods (including school journey times). Especially for those wishing to access Stockley Park, as it was felt buses were already overcrowded and left people at stops (especially in the AM peak). In particular, there was concern that combined with the reduced evening and weekend frequency, there would not be enough capacity for Heathrow’s shift workers (this can fall outside of peak times – for example late in the evening).

There were also 10 comments suggesting single deck buses were inappropriate on a route to the airport as there would be insufficient space for luggage.

24 Oppose re-routing of the routes 350 and U5

There were 33 comments opposing the re-routing of the 350 and the U5 because of the impact on current journeys. The most common of these with 22 comments, was objection on the grounds it would result in longer journey times to Heathrow Airport for those in the Hayes area, as using Botwell Common Lane would lead to longer journey times. It would also result in longer journey times to Heathrow from the Dawley Road area as customers would need to use two services. Other areas of concern were access to the Asda supermarket for current users of the U5, and broken journeys for those west of Botwell Common Lane (in particular access to the Leisure Centre).

A further seven comments called for us to keep the routes as they are.

Other general types of comments

There were three comments stating that changes would cause confusion for current users. There were seven comments where respondents had misunderstood the proposal or some aspects of it. The majority of the confusion seems to stem from the route swap, with respondents not quite understanding which section would swap and believing that the swap would make the U5 journey longer.

17 respondents made comments or suggestions that were not related this consultation. Six of those respondents made suggestions relating to bus routes U1 and U3, i.e., varying arrival times, increasing capacity etc. The other bus route mentioned in seven instances was route 222. Respondents commented that this run parallel to U5. Three respondents suggested that frequency on the 222 should be reduced in order for route 350 frequency to be maintained. Six respondents also mentioned that route A10 had poor service and this needed to be addressed.

Support for the proposed changes to the route

There were 12 comments made that noted general support for the changes and for the 350 becoming a single deck bus.

Suggestions

We received 66 comments making suggestions as to how we could improve the proposals to swap the routes. The common theme across these comments was that the proposal did not address the key issue for the routes, which was strongly felt to be the lack of capacity on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor. 29 comments called for an increase on both routes in the peaks, particularly the AM.

There were a further 22 comments calling for a general increase in frequency on the whole of the U5 route and five calls for the 350 to remain a double deck in the peak periods.

25 There were also ten comments requesting us to address the timetabling of both routes so that the bus departure times are better aligned to the train arrival times. It was felt this would help to address the overcrowding concerns in the morning peak.

Do you have any additional comments on proposals to introduce double deck vehicles on the route U5?

Concerns with introducing double decks on the route U5

We received 10 comments concerning the practicalities of introducing double deck buses onto the route, these covered concerns about adequate road widths, whether tree cutting would be required and also seeking clarification that a good quality modern fleet would be introduced.

Opposition to introducing double deck buses on the route U5

We received nine comments objecting to the proposal to introduce a double decker bus on route U5. Four of the respondents stated that the route is not busy enough to warrant use of a double deck bus, while one said that they are only needed between Hayes and Stockley. One respondent stated that as the U5 overlaps with a number of other buses thus the extra capacity was not needed. One respondent said that having double decker buses running down Porter’s Way would be intrusive and suggested only having double decker buses during peak hours only if necessary. Two did not give a reason for opposing the proposal while one said that if they had to be introduced then TfL needed to ensure that the wheelchair spaces were only used by wheelchair users and not taken up by pushchairs as is currently the case.

Support for introducing double decks on the route U5

We received 65 comments noting support for introducing double deck buses to the route. Just over half of these were comments of general support like ‘This is a good idea’ or ‘This should have been done years ago’. There were also a further 28 comments welcoming the increase capacity on the route particularly in regard to the West Drayton area, school journey times and accommodating the extra 350 customers that would now use the U5.

Suggestions to modify the proposal to introduce double decks

We received 12 comments asking us to make both routes double deck, six comments thought double deck buses were only required in the AM/PM peaks and a further two comments suggested it would be more appropriate to make the U5 more frequent rather than introduce double deck buses.

26 Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the frequency of the 350?

Opposition to the decrease in frequency

We received 210 comments opposing the proposed reduction in frequency. The largest area of concern was the negative effect it would have on access to Heathrow (Terminal 5), BA Waterside, Harmondsworth Detention Centre and the Piccadilly Line, with 71 comments specifying concerns about this. There were concerns about employees accessing work in a timely fashion and regular travellers making flights, and that a reduction in frequency would result in unacceptable increases to overall journey times.

A particular area of concern was the reduction in frequency to every 30 minutes at the weekend and evening as it was felt this was unacceptable for airport workers who would need to leave much more time to make journeys and would cause real issues if the service was delayed or traffic was bad. In addition, it may present safety concerns for shift workers who would need to wait longer at stops.

Many also noted that lower frequencies would deter people from using it and encourage car use to the airport for both staff and those using the airport. Others were concerned that opening of Elizabeth line services would in fact further increase demand for access to Heathrow.

A couple of respondents also noted a reduction in service would be to the determent of residents of the Heathrow Villages who use the service.

The second largest area of objection, with 71 comments, was the impact it would have on access to Stockley Park. Respondents were concerned that the changes would further intensify the current capacity problems between Hayes and Stockley Park in the peak periods. Respondents noted overcrowding on buses and people being left at stops. In addition a longer wait time between services would make the journey longer, especially if customers just missed a service or were unable to get on one due to it being at full capacity. Some noted that a number of employees of Stockley Park businesses come from far away and that additional wait times would present an unfair burden on their already lengthy journeys. There was also concern that the opening of Elizabeth line would also create more demand for the route. Calls for an increase in the U5 to offset the decrease in the 350 was also a common theme.

There were 45 comments noting general opposition to the proposal with sentiments such as ‘buses running every 20 minutes is not frequent enough’, ‘decreasing its timetable would inconvenience me greatly” and “I think it’s too much of wait at every 12 minutes”

There were 22 comments about access to West Drayton station and the future Elizabeth line service being compromised by the proposal to decrease the frequency

27 on route 350. The main issue mentioned 13 times was that the 350 is the only direct bus between West Drayton and Terminal 5 and the decrease would make it more difficult to travel between the two points. Respondents also stated that the decrease in frequency would have a negative impact and inconvenience commuters. Some also felt the local population is increasing and the introduction Elizabeth line services will increase demand so frequency shouldn’t be decreased

Suggestions relating to proposals to change frequency of the 350

There were 74 comments suggestion alternatives to the proposal to reduce the frequency of the route 350. There were 37 calls to actually increase, rather than decrease the frequency. A further 21 to keep the frequency as is, eight to keep the peak frequencies as is and five calls for us to introduce a shuttle bus service between Hayes and Stockley Park.

28

Appendix B: Stakeholder List

London TravelWatch

Local Authorities

London Borough of Hillingdon

Elected Members

Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member Assembly Member Shaun Bailey Assembly Member Kemi Badenoch Assembly Member Sian Berry Assembly Member Assembly Member Assembly Member Peter Whittle Assembly Member Assembly Member Assembly Member Onkar Sahota Assembly Member Fiona Twycross Assembly Member Assembly Member John McDonnell MP - Hayes & Harlington Boris Johnson MP - Uxbridge and South Rusilip Cllr Burrows Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling Cllr Cooper Uxbridge North Cllr Graham Uxbridge North Cllr Yarrow Uxbridge North Cllr Burles Uxbridge South Cllr Cooper Uxbridge South Cllr Chamdal Brunel Cllr Mills Brunel Cllr Stead Brunel Cllr Ahmad-Wallana Cllr Davis Yiewsley Cllr Edwards Yiewsley Cllr Duncan West Drayton Cllr Gilham West Drayton Cllr Sweeting West Drayton Cllr Gardner Botwell Cllr Jarjussey Botwell Cllr Khursheed Botwell

29 Cllr Dhillon Pinkwell Cllr Lakhmana Pinkwell Cllr Morse Pinkwell Cllr Khatra Heathrow Villages Cllr Money Heathrow Villages Cllr Nelson Heathrow Villages

Local Businesses and Institutions

Airline Operators Committee Heathrow

Asda

BA Waterside

BAA Heathrow

Botwell Green Leisure Centre

Botwell Green Library

Botwell House Catholic Primary School

British Airways

Brunel University

Cowley St Laurence School

Harmondsworth Immigration Centre

Harmondsworth Primary School

Hayes and Harlington Station

Hayes Elim Christian Centre

Hayes Muslim Centre

Hyde Park Hayes

Immaculate Heart of Mary Church

30 Lake Park Farm Academy

Laurel Lane Primary School

Moorcroft School

Parish Church of St Anslen

Rabbsfarm Primary School

Royal Mail

Skyport Trade Park

Spelthorne Farm Centre

St Lawrence's Church

St Mary's Church

St Matthew's Church, Yiewsley

St Matthews CofE Primary School

Stockley Academy

Stockley Park

The Uxbridge Community Centre

Trade City Business Park

Uxbridge High School

Uxbridge Library

West Drayton Library

West Drayton Primary School

West Drayton Station

West Drayton Young People's Centre

Whitehall Infant School

Whitehall Junior School

Word Of Life Christian

31 Fellowship Church

Yiewsley and West Drayton Community Centre

Yiewsley Library

Young People's Academy

Local Interest Groups

Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee Hayes Town Centre Partnership West London Alliance Yiewsley and West Drayton Town Centre Action Group

Police and Health Authorities

Brunel Medical Centre

Central Uxbridge Surgery

Church Road Surgery

Dr Chana and Partners

Elers Road Health Clinic

Hayes Town Medical Centre

Hillingdon Hospital

Hillingdon Safer Transport Team

Kingsway Surgery

London Ambulance Service

Metropolitan Police Heathrow Airport

Metropolitan Police service

NHS Hillingdon Clinical

32 Commissioning Group

Orchard Medical Practice

Otterfield Medical Centre

The Belmont Medical Centre

Transport Groups

ICE -London

ICE -London

London Cycling Campaign (Hillingdon)

London TravelWatch

London Omnibus Traction Society

TPH for Heathrow Airport

Accessibility Groups

Accessibility Officer (Hillingdon Council)

Disability Rights UK

RNIB

33 Appendix C: Copy of customer email

Are our emails displaying well on your device? If not, allow images or view online

Home Plan journey Status update Bus information

Dear Test email recipient,

We would like your views on proposals to make changes to bus route 350, which runs between Hayes and Heathrow and bus route U5, which runs between Hayes and Uxbridge.

Both routes would be altered between Hayes and Stockley Park.

For full details on proposals, and to share your views, please click here

This consultation will run until 11 November.

Yours sincerely

Peter Bradley Head of Consultation

These are our consultation customer service updates. To unsubscribe, please click here

34 Appendix D: Copy of stakeholder email

35 Appendix E: Bus stop poster

Ends

36