Proposed Changes to Buses in Dartford and Crayford (Routes 428 and 492)

Proposed Changes to Buses in Dartford and Crayford (routes 428 and 492)

Consultation Report October 2020

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 3 1. About the Proposals ...... 3 2. About the Consultation...... 8 3. About the Respondents ...... 14 4. Summary of all Consultation Responses ...... 16 5. Responses to Issues Raised ...... 26 6. Next Steps ...... 28 Appendix A: Consultation Materials ...... 29 Appendix B: Stakeholders ...... 42 Appendix C: Online Survey Questions ...... 54 Appendix D: Codeframe ...... 56 Appendix E: Summaries of Stakeholder Responses ...... 64

2 Executive Summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on the following scheme: Proposed Changes to Buses in Dartford and Crayford (routes 428 and 492) Between 19 July and 10 September 2019, we consulted on proposals for changes to the 428 and 492 bus services, particularly in the Dartford and Crayford area. We received 1,757 responses to the consultation. 1,732 (99 per cent) of these were from members of the public and 25 were from stakeholder organisations. The majority of responses provided responses to the open text questions and were not in support of the proposals. The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Chapter 4. Our responses to the issues raised are provided in Chapter 5

Nextsteps Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review.

We will proceed with the conversion of the conversion of the double decking of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys.

Further details on these changes are set out in Chapter 6 of this report.

1. About the Proposals

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Purpose Buses play a unique role in the life of London. They are the most accessible form of public transport and they provide the widest and densest network of travel options for distances that are too long to walk or cycle. Good reliable bus services are fundamental to how our customers move around the city.

3 However the way our customers are using the bus network is changing. For this reason we continuously monitor the network to understand where demand is increasing or falling. This helps us determine whether or not we are providing services that effectively match customer demand.

This consultation also sought views on a 1 July 2019 change making the westbound routing for routes 96, 428 and 492 in Darftford town centre the same roads as that for the eastbound buses. These changes were driven by Dartford Borough Council’s scheme to reduce congestion and create a new public space in the heart of Dartford.

1.3 Proposed Changes

• 1.3.1 Overview

We proposed to make changes to bus routes 428 and 492.

Route 428 runs between Erith and Bluewater. It uses single deck buses and runs every 15 minutes Monday to Saturday daytimes, and every 30 minutes in the evening and on Sundays. Since December 2017, routes 428 and 96 serve the same stops between Crayford and Bluewater, and between Dartford town centre and Bluewater stop only at Darent Valley Hospital.

Route 492 runs between Sidcup and Bluewater. It uses double deck buses and runs every 30 minutes Monday to Sunday daytimes, and every 60 minutes each evening. Between Dartford town centre and Bluewater it serves all stops, via London Road.

4 Figure 1 Overview map, showing current and proposed routes

A full copy of the webpage text, including maps, is provided in Appendix A to this report.

• 1.3.2 Route 428

On routes 96 and 428 we determined that there is sufficient capacity on route 96 alone to accommodate customer demand between Crayford and Bluewater, the routes also provide exactly the same connections between Crayford and Bluewater.

For route 428 we proposed to:

• No longer run this route between Crayford and Bluewater • Run this route with double deck buses instead of single deck buses • No longer run three schoolday-only peak hour journeys. This would affect the 07:41 Erith to Crayford; 15:25 Crayford to Erith; and 15:36 Crayford to Erith journeys. There would be no other change to frequency and buses would continue to run every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes

Customers that wish to travel to/from Dartford, Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater could interchange at Crayford to/from route 96. In 2016 the Mayor introduced the Hopper fare which has already helped millions of customers make affordable bus

5 journeys across London. The Hopper fare allows customers to interchange between buses, or make multiple bus journeys, within one hour at no extra cost.

Replacing single deck buses with double deck buses would provide sufficient capacity to compensate for the removal of the three peak hour journeys and provide more capacity to help with future demand.

Buses would stand between journeys at the bus stand in Roman Way, Crayford (outside Sainsbury’s). This would also become the last stop for route 428 buses from Erith.

• 1.3.3 Route 492

For route 492 we proposed to:

• No longer run this route between Dartford town centre and Bluewater.

Customers that wish to travel between locations within London and Bluewater could interchange at Home Gardens, near Dartford rail station, to/from route 96. Customers would be able to take advantage of the Hopper fare, which allows customers to interchange between buses, or make multiple bus journeys, within one hour at no extra cost.

There would be no change to the frequency of this service as a result of the proposed change.

Buses would stand between journeys at the existing eastbound bus stop D in Home Gardens, Dartford.

• 1.3.4 Dartford town centre changes

We also sought views on a recent change (from 1 July 2019) in Dartford town centre to routes 96, 428 and 492. These changes were driven by Dartford Borough Council’s scheme to reduce congestion and create a new public space in the heart of Dartford.

As part of this we changed the westbound routing for these bus routes to serve the same roads as the eastbound buses. This makes the bus network easier to understand, and brings westbound buses closer to Dartford rail station and the northern part of the town centre.

More information on Dartford Borough Council’s town centre scheme can be found on https://www.dartford.gov.uk/by-category/environment-and-planning2/new- planning-homepage/planning-policy/dartford-town-centre.

Feedback was sought on the recent town centre route changes to help us better understand how these routes are serving the local community and whether or not these changes have resulted in any unforeseen issues for our customers.

6 1.4 Impacts on protected groups We undertook an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) to examine what impacts the proposed route changes have on customers with characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010.

The EqIA for these proposals was made available during the consultation and will be refreshed following the consultation.

Impacts identified though the EqIA process prior to consultation included:

• Challenges from additional walking distances, interchanges and waiting times for those affected by age, disability or pregnancy/maternity • Financial impacts on those with low-income if they need to pay for non-TfL journey Potential mitigations to some of these challenges were identified, including potential mitigating effect of extending the route proposed 428 route at Crayford to allow interchange at the same bus stop, rather than a 110m walk to connect with the 96. Kent County Council was also understood to be reviewing possible additional westbound bus stops in Dartford town centre

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 in the proposals • To understand any issues that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware • To understand concerns and objections • To allow respondents to make suggestions Feedback was additionally sought on recent changes to bus routing in Dartford town centre:

• To help us to better understand how these routes are serving the local community and whether or not the recent changes have resulted in any unforeseen issues for our customers.

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 Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 6 of this report.

2.3 Consultation history This is the first consultation undertaken by TfL on these proposals.

8 Consultation has previously been undertaken on associated schemes which have since been approved or implemented. For example: • TfL consulted on proposed changes to route 96 in Autumn 2017 (https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-96/) • Dartford Borough Council consulted on proposed Town Centre changes in Spring 2018 (https://www.dartford.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/591748/Consultation -Statement-July-2018.pdf)

• Dartford Borough Council consulted on proposals for the Stone Lodge Development (including new Secondary School) (http://committeedmz.dartford.gov.uk/documents/s60848/Appendix%20A%20- Public%20consultation%20combined%20docs%20003.pdf)

2.4 Who we consulted The consultation was open to any person or organisation that wished to respond. We targeted our publicity at customers who use the three impacted routes (ie 428, 492 and 96) and at stakeholder organisations likely to have an interest in their performance/operation. This included local politicians, schools and charities. A full list of stakeholders asked for comment can be found in Appendix B.

2.5 Dates and duration The consultation ran for six weeks from 19 July to 10 September 2019.

In recognition of the fact that much of the consultation period fell during the school holiday period, local schools were provided an additional two weeks after the formal consultation closure date to provide a response.

Any other responses received in the two weeks following the formal closure of the consultation period have also been accepted and included in the analysis.

2.6 What we asked We asked respondents to identify which of the impacted bus routes they used, and with what frequency.

We then asked a series of closed questions to identify how the proposed changed to the 428 and/or 492 would affect respondents’ journeys in terms of duration, number of changes, crowding and frequency of service.

9 We then asked two open questions, providing the opportunity for free-text comment on (a)the proposed changes to routes 428 or 492, and (b)the changes that were introduced to routes 96,428 and 492 in Dartford town centre in July 2019.

Respondents were also asked if they had any comments on the EqIA report or consultation process for the proposals and to provide information about themselves.

All questions were optional. A copy of the survey questions can be found in Appendix C.

2.7 Methods of responding The main channel to respond to our consultation was an online survey on our website (https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/96-428-492/)

Additionally people could respond by: • Emailing [email protected]

• Writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

• Calling our consultations line on 0343 222 1155

2.8 Consultation materials and publicity During the consultation we sent emails to almost 12,000 customers who recently used the impacted routes. A further 491 stakeholders organisations with potential interests in our proposals were also identified and emailed. We understand that not all our customers use email or the internet, so we also posted posters in 125 bus stops, provided hardcopy leaflets in various libraries, bus stations, hospitals and council buildings, and posted over 600 letters. TfL’s bus status update tool was also upgraded to advertise the consultation when alerts were sent out relating to the three impacted routes.

In addition to our own direct publicity, key third party organisations were requested to advertise the consultation to their own stakeholders. This included non-TfL bus operators in the area (to help reach bus drivers and customers on non-TfL routes) and the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (to reach local GPs, Patient Participation Groups etc).

Further external parties also promoted the consultation independently, including local schools, campaign groups, MPs/Councillors and local media.

Copies of the main consultation materials used in this consultation are available in Appendix A.

10 • 2.8.1 Website The primary method of learning the detail of our proposals and responding to the consultation on them was via our consultation website (https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/96-428-492/). The website provided detailed information on our proposals, including multiple maps, and a link to the EqIA. The website directed respondents to an online survey, and also provided details of other ways to respond to the consultation.

• 2.8.2 Letters On 20 July 2019, we delivered a letter advertising the consultation to the 616 residences and businesses which would be on a double-deck bus route for the first time if the proposals were to be implemented.

• 2.8.3 Leaflets We produced an A5 leaflet explaining the changes and promoting the consultation. Hard copies were provided for reading/collection at the following local venues:

• Darent Valley Hospital • Bluewater Bus Station • Selection of libraries in Bexley and Dartford, including Dartford Central Library • Dartford Civic Centre • Bexleyheath Civic Offices

• 2.8.4 Emails to public We sent 11,753 emails to customers who use one or more of the TfL bus routes affected by our proposals. These emails provided an overview of the proposals, advertised the consultation and directed people to the website for further detail/to respond.

• 2.8.5 Emails to stakeholders Emails advertising the consultation were sent to 811 individuals within 491 different stakeholder organisations in the early stages of the consultation. These groups included impacted county/borough councils, charities, educational institutions, businesses and healthcare groups.

A reminder email was also sent to these stakeholders, on 03 September 2019.

In recognition of the fact that much of the consultation period had fallen in the school holidays, any school stakeholders identified were also contacted on 03-04 September 2019 to advise them that they could respond for an additional two weeks

11 after the formal consultation closure date. Three schools in the area (Stone St Mary's CE Primary School, Shenstone School, and St Joseph's Catholic Primary School) were directly contacted for the first time at this stage.

• 2.8.6 Press and media activity Some third party media outlets reported on the proposals and advertised the consultation. This was not driven by TfL.

• 2.8.7 On-site advertising Posters advertising the consultation were put up in 125 bus stops along the three impacted routes. This included 23 Arriva bus stops and 2 Bluewater ones, as well as 100 TfL bus stops.

Posters and/or leaflets were additionally provided to further places where they might have an impact, including in Dartford: (i)Bluewater (for the bus station), (ii) Darent Valley Hospital, (iii)Dartford Central Library (iv) Dartford Civic Centre.

Additionally an unkown number of posters promoting the consultaion (and in opposition to our proposals were posted around the Dartford area by campaigners groups opposed to the proposed changes..

• 2.8.8 Digital advertising Our online bus status update tool was adapted to advertise the consultation whenever alerts were sent out during the consultation period which related to the TfL bus routes impacted by our proposals.

• 2.8.9 Meetings with stakeholders Meetings/conversations were held during the consultation period with any stakeholder organisations which requested one. This included Dartford Borough Council, Kent County Council, LB Bexley and London TravelWatch.

No campaign groups/organisers identified themselves during the consultation or requested a meeting.

• 2.8.10 Measures taken to encourage participation by protected groups It is predicted that existing users of the affected bus routes would be most impacted by our proposals. Emails were sent to almost 12,000 users of the impacted bus routes. Additionally posters were put up in 125 bus stops along these routes.

12 Emails outlining our proposals and publicising the consultation were also sent to stakeholder organisations and interest groups representing those who may be most impacted by the proposals. Those relating to the protected groups identified as most impacted were particularly sought.

Further to this:

• Posters were posted at bus stops to help those who do not use the internet • Hardopy and/or softcopy leaflets were provided to schools, hospitals and libraries • Health organisations were provided electronic copies of posters and leaflets and encouraged to share them with staff etc • Responses were accepted for an additional two weeks after consultation closure to allow a new academic year to commence

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses All comments and suggestions received, by any method, were reviewed in order to identify the full range of issues raised by respondents.

We developed a ‘code frame’ for each of the open text questions. A code frame is simply a list of the issues raised during the consultation; together with the frequency each was raised. Every open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code frame. Each response could be coded into multiple codes, depending on the number of issues raised by the individual.

Duplicate responses –eg the same individual submitting the same information by different methods- were identified, and these were removed from the analysis. Where a respondent provided different information in different responses, all issues were considered, and reported as if one response.

13 3. About the Respondents

In total we received responses from 1,732 members of the public and 25 stakeholder organisations. Unless otherwise specified, statistics in this report include responses from both members of the public and stakeholder organisations

One petition, involving 1,300 individuals was also referenced in a consultation response. Although not formally submitted, his is described in Section 4.7.

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total % Public responses 1734 99 Stakeholder responses 25 1 Total 1757 100

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation 1324 respondents answered this question.

How respondents heard Total % Received an email from TfL 163 12 Received a letter from TfL 22 2 R ead about in the press 172 13

S aw it on the TfL website 89 7

S ocial media 458 35

Other (please specify) 420 32

T otal 100 1324

Of the 420 respondents who stated that they had heard of the consultation via an ‘other’ source, 304 specified that they first heard of the consultation via a poster or leaflet. This includes both TfL and non-TfL materials advertising the consultation.

3.3 Methods of responding Responses were received by various methods. The overwhelming majority were provided via the online survey. All responses received outside of the online survey

14 were uploaded to it manually by TfL to enable comprehensive analysis of all comments received.

Methods of responding Total % Website 1376 78 Email 341 19 Letter 31 2 Phone 9 1 Total 1757 100

3.4 Distribution of respondents 1,209 respondents supplied a postcode. These were used to identify the general areas where respondents to the consultation were based. Overwhelmingly the responses received came from the local area.

This is demonstrated in the indicative map below - each red dot on the map represents a postcode respoded from.

15 4. Summary of all Consultation Responses

This chapter summarises the outcomes of the consultation, including what issues were raised by respondents in their written comments. This includes responses we received by all methods and from both stakeholders and members of the public.

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 –‘Which of these bus routes do you use and how often do you use them?’ Respondents were asked how often they used the bus routes affected by these proposals. 1,428 respondents answered this question, 776 of whom used at least one of the impacted routes once a week or more. This represents 44 per cent of all respondents.

592 respondents use the 428 once a week or more, 989 use the 492 at least weekly and 604 use the 96 weekly or more.

Which of these bus routes do you use and how often do you use them? 1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600 No. of responses of No. 400

200

0 R oute 428 R oute 492 R oute 96 Never 170 93 98 R arely 130 69 127 Occasionally 253 199 327 Once a week 80 79 79 S everal times a week 262 374 307 Daily 250 536 218

16 4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 -‘How do you think the proposed changes to route 428 would affect your journeys?’ Respondents were asked how they felt the proposed changes to the 428 would affect their journeys. Excluding those whose selected ‘Not Applicable’, 968 respondents -55 per cent of all respondents- answered this question.

Of those who responded to each section of the question:

• 75 per cent (705 responses) believed their journey time would increase • 76 per cent (692 responses) believed their amount of interchanges would increase • 58 per cent (532 responses) believed their journey comfort would decrease • 57 per cent (537 responses) believed their frequency of service would decrease

How do you think the proposed changes to route 428 would affect your journeys? 1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300 No. of responses of No.

200

100

0 A mount of C omfort (s pa ce Frequency of J ourney time interchange available on bus) service Don't know 70 72 113 170 S ta y the s a me 111 120 135 153 Decrease 54 32 532 537 Increase 705 692 139 75

17 4.3 Summary of Question 3 –‘How do you think the proposed changes to route 492 would affect your journeys?’ Respondents were asked how they felt the proposed changes to the 492 would affect their journeys. Excluding those whose selected ‘Not Applicable’, 1,205 respondents -69 per cent of all respondents- answered this question.

Of those who responded to each section of the question:

• 84 per cent (1,034 responses) believed their journey time would increase • 84 per cent (1,019 responses) believed their amount of interchanges would increase • 56 per cent (669 responses) believed their journey comfort would decrease • 63 per cent (745 responses) believed their frequency of service would decrease

How do you think the proposed changes to route 492 would affect your journeys?

1400

1200

1000

800

600 No. of responses of No.

400

200

0 A mount of C omfort (s pa ce Frequency of J ourney time interchange available on bus service Don't know 48 62 141 149 S ta y the s a me 85 91 220 160 Decrease 64 34 669 745 Increase 1034 1019 160 135

18 4.4 Summary of Question 4 –‘Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to routes 428 or 492? Please state which route(s) you are referring to’ Of the 1,757 respondents to the consultation, 1,624 (92 per cent) provided a comment in response to this question.

Respondents raised 107 different issues in relation to the proposed changes to routes 428 and 492. Whilst some of these were requests for information or positive feedback for consideration, the vast majority of issues raised were negative feedback or suggestions for improvement.

A list of all the issues raised in response to this question can be found in Appendix D. The 10 issues raised most commonly are listed below

No. times Issue Issue was raised Proposed changes to the 492 will be an inconvenience 806

The proposals will have an adverse impact on students/younger people 455

Generally negative towards, or in opposition to, the proposed changes 328

Proposals will increase journey time to and from work 316

Proposed changes to the 428 will be an inconvenience 284

The proposals will have an adverse impact on older people 217

The proposals will have an adverse impact on disabled people/those with restricted/limited mobility issues 205

Keep the 428/492 as it is 165

Inconvenience to change buses 162

Concern at the increased cost of a journey –specifically the need to pay for non-TfL services 155

Over 5,000 comments were made in response to this question. In addition to the above, several other issues were also raised more than 100 times, including:

• Concerns that respondent or others had no viable alternative and would need to walk places if the proposals were implemented • Other specific financial comments also highlighting an increase in travel costs as a result of the proposals

19 • Negative feedback that journey times will increase as a result of having to change buses more often, and the impacts the proposals would have on every day tasks • Concern that the proposals reduce bus route options to Darent Valley Hospital

4.5 Summary of Question 5 –‘Do you have any feedback regarding the changes in Dartford town centre (routes 96, 428 and 492) that were introduced on 1 July 2019?’ Of the 1,757 respondents to the consultation, 804 (46 per cent) provided a comment in response to this question.

Respondents raised 56 different issues in relation to the recent changes to bus routes/stops in Dartford town centre. These 56 issues were raised a total of 256 times, almost all of which (93 per cent) were flagging negative issues or suggesting improvements.

A list of all the issues raised in response to this question can be found in Appendix D. The 10 issues raised most commonly are listed below

No. times Issue Issue was raised

General negative opinion of the changes 84

Another stop is needed at the bottom of West Hill 14

The new stops are in bad locations for serving the town centre 13

New stop location has/must have reduced customers/sales for 9 local businesses

Town centre bus layout should be reinstated to how it was 9 previously

It is unclear where bus stops have moved to 8

Safety/Security concerns 8

Inconvenience caused due to cutting down on bus stops 8

Increase the number of bus stops for the 96 7

The changes to the layout weren't sufficiently advertised 6

20 4.6 Summary of stakeholder responses We received responses from 25 stakeholders– ie those organisations or individuals we judged are notable and reasonably well known amongst the public.

This included

• Local authorities & statutory bodies: o London Borough of Bexley Council o Bexley Labour Group (ie London Borough of Bexley’s Labour Councillors) o Dartford Borough Council & Kent County Council (joint response) o Dartford Borough Council (supplementary individual response) o Dartford Labour Group (ie Dartford Council’s Labour Councillors) o Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council o Stone Parish Council o Councillor Kelly Grehan (Councillor for Stone House ward, Dartford) o Councillors Gower, Pallen and Smith (Councillors for Bexleyheath ward, Bexley)

• Government departments, parliamentary bodies & politicians: o Gareth Johnson MP (MP for Dartford) o Teresa Pearce MP (MP for Erith and Thamesmead) o David Evennett MP (MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford) o James Brokenshire MP (MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup)

• Greater London Authority o Gareth Bacon AM (AM for Bexley and Bromley, Leader GLA conservatives)

• Accessibility Groups: o Bexley Mencap

• Transport and road user groups: o London TravelWatch

• Businesses, employers and venues: o Stagecoach

• Local interest groups: o North Cray Residents Association o Erith Library Knitting Group

• Schools:

21 o Stone Lodge School o Haberdasher’s Aske’s Crayford Academy o Beth’s School o Cleeve Park School

• Others: o NHS Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley Clinical Commissioning Group o Metropolitan Police Officers

Stakeholder comments were largely negative towards the proposals and raised many issues made by other respondents. A summary of each of the stakeholders’ responses is provided in Appendix E.

4.7 Petitions and campaigns A number of online (Change.Org) petitions relating to our proposals were observed during the consultation period. However none of these were submitted to TfL as part of the consultation, so consequently they have not been detailed in this report.

The Dartford Labour Group did reference one such a petition in its response however. Whilst it was not made clear exactly what signatories had signed their name too, it was highlighted that 1,300 people had supported their opposition to our proposals.

Three other online petitions observed during the consultation period were also opposed to the proposals and believed –in some cases- to be related to a community campaign/or campaigns-against our proposals.

TfL was not directly approached by any campaign group nor did we receive any responses to the consultation declaring to be from a campaign organisation. However, from observations during the consultation and review of the consultation responses, it is clear that there was a clear effort from elements of the local community to advertise the consultation and encourage people to respond in opposition to the proposals.

4.8 Comments on the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) A copy of the EqIA for the proposals was provided and respondents were invited to comment on it. 255 comments were made in response to this question, more than half (57 per cent) of which asserted that certain impacted groups hadn’t been adequately considered in the EqIA.

22 A list of all the issues raised in response to this question can be found in Appendix D. The 10 raised most commonly are listed below.

No. times Issue Issue was raised The E QIA hasn't considered people with mobility issues/Older 146 people/The young/ The Vulnerable /people with disabilities and other groups

D on't agree with E qIA assessment 39

Generally negative opinions about the EqIA process 11

Find the EqIA process discriminatory 10

Don't understand the question 9

The changes would have an impact on the community 7

Generally supportive of the EqIA process 6

Is everyone aware of what this consultation is about? 4

Comment not relevant to proposals 4

Sceptical about EqIA process 3

4.9 Comments on the consultation Respondents were asked what they thought about the quality of different elements of the consultation for these proposals. 1,195 respondents (68 per cent) provided a comment on the quality of the consultation and associated materials.

Overwhelmingly respondents answering this question indicated that they found the consultation to be very good, good or adequate.

23 What do you think about the quality of this consultation? 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400 No. of responses of No.

200

0 Webs ite s truc ture Maps , Written O nline Webs ite E vents & & ease of images & P romotion informatio survey accessibili drop-in finding related al material n format ty sessions wha t you diagrams needed Very poor 94 115 95 42 43 163 201 P oor 99 95 134 68 55 103 127 Adequate 486 452 450 482 429 228 260 Good 408 402 339 469 489 123 138 Very good 179 167 133 212 217 59 85

Respondents were also invited to provide written comments on the quality of the consultation and associated materials 268 respondents (15 per cent of all respondents) did so.

Respondents made 211 comments, 88 (ie 42 per cent) of which raised that the respondent felt that the consultation had been poorly advertised

A list of all the issues raised in response to this question can be found in Appendix D. The 10 raised most commonly are listed below.

No. times Issue Issue was raised Consultation poorly advertised and/ or lacking in information 106

Sceptical about consultation process 22

Generally positive 16

Comment not relevant to proposals 9

24 Insufficient, inaccurate or unclear information 8

Opposed to consultation 7

Advertise via letter 7

Older adult don't necessarily have access to internet to get 5 access to the consultation

Poor quality/not good/badly planned 5

There should be signs at affected bus stops and local residents 5 should get flyers

25 5. Responses to Issues Raised

We have considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation.

Below are our responses to the key issues raised about our proposals, including whether or not we could make the changes suggested, and setting out our reasoning.

We judged that some other comments made by respondents to the consultation were out of scope of our proposals, and have not been addressed here. Similarly, statements of support for the scheme are not responded to in the below, although we noted these in every case.

Interchange at Crayford

Interchange at Crayford has been raised as a significant concern. Under the proposals passengers travelling towards Bluewater would need to cross the road at Roman Way to interchange with the 96, a walk of around 100 metres. Passengers travelling towards Erith would have same stop interchange available. This could be mitigated by changing the location of the bus stop on Crayford Road so that both the 428 and 96 could serve it but would require changes to the highway layout.

Capacity on Route 96

Concerns have been raised that there would not be sufficient capacity on the 96 if the 428 and 492 were to be withdrawn. However, analysis shows that there would be sufficient capacity on the Bluewater – Crayford corridor and capacity would be well matched to demand during the busiest hour if the scheme was introduced..

Changes to fares paid

Concerns were raised that passengers would have to pay more expensive fares where a non TfL service would have to be taken to complete their journeys. TfL has no remit of fares policy outside of London.

School Capacity

Concerns were raised about students accessing a new secondary school in Stone, Kent. Data was provided by the school which showed that cross boundary students were minimal, however this could be kept under review in future years if the scheme to withdraw the 492 proceeded.

Concerns were also raised about removing the school day only journeys on the 428. The proposals include double decking the 428 meaning there is no reduction in capacity during school times, and that more capacity would be provided overall.

27 6. Next Steps

After considering all responses from the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time.

We will need to look at the long term impact of the current pandemic on people’s travel patterns and usage. Therefore we will keep both operations under review.

However, we will proceed with the conversion of the conversion of the double decking of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys.

28 Appendix A: Consultation Materials

A1 Webpage Text Overview

We are proposing to make changes to bus routes 428 and 492. These proposed changes would help to better match bus capacity to customer demand.

These proposals are subject to a public consultation and we are keen to hear your thoughts on how these changes could affect you.

The closing date for comments is Tuesday 10 September 2019.

What are we proposing?

Route 428

From monitoring routes 96 and 428 we have determined that there is sufficient capacity on route 96 to accommodate customer demand between Crayford and Bluewater.

For route 428 we are proposing to:

• No longer run this route between Crayford and Bluewater

• Run this route with double deck buses instead of single deck buses

• No longer run three schoolday-only peak hour journeys. This would affect the 07:41 Erith to Crayford; 15:25 Crayford to Erith; and 15:36 Crayford to Erith journeys. There would be no other change to frequency and buses would continue to run every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes

Customers that wish to travel to/from Dartford, Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater could interchange at Crayford to/from route 96. In 2016 the Mayor introduced the 3333Hopper fare which has already helped millions of customers make affordable

29 bus journeys across London. The Hopper fare allows customers to interchange between buses, or make multiple bus journeys, within one hour at no extra cost.

Buses would stand between journeys at the bus stand in Roman Way, Crayford (outside Sainsbury’s). This would also become the last stop for route 428 buses from Erith.

Route 492:

For route 492 we are proposing to:

• No longer run this route between Dartford town centre and Bluewater

There would be no change to the frequency of this service as a result of the proposed change.

Buses would stand between journeys at the existing eastbound bus stop D in Home Gardens, Dartford.

Subject to consultation, we are proposing that the above changes to routes 428 and 492 would be made from January 2020.

Dartford town centre:

We’re also seeking views on a recent change (from 1 July 2019) in Dartford town centre to routes 96, 428 and 492. These changes were driven by Dartford Borough Council’s scheme to reduce congestion and create a new public space in the heart of Dartford.

For more information on the town centre scheme click here.

Your feedback will help us to better understand how these routes are serving the local community and whether or not these changes have resulted in any unforeseen issues for our customers.

30 Overview map, showing current and proposed routes (PDF 90KB)

Current TfL buses in Dartford town centre (PDF 69KB)

Proposed TfL buses in Dartford town centre from January 2020 (PDF 68KB)

Proposed interchange in Crayford from January 2020 (PDF 65KB)

Alternative options considered

32 Route 428:

We considered making a shorter reduction for route 428, so that it would continue to run between Erith and Dartford. However it would then continue to serve the same stops as route 96 between Crayford and Dartford and would provide more capacity than is needed on this section of both routes.

Route 492:

We considered reducing route 492 so that it would no longer run between Crayford and Bluewater. However this would have resulted in interchanges for more customers and would have left the area around Station Road and Chastillian Road in Crayford unserved by buses.

How would this affect your journey?

Route 428 (Erith-Crayford) and route 492 (Sidcup-Dartford town centre) may become more reliable as they would be shorter and no longer affected by traffic congestion around Bluewater.

In some cases, if you’re travelling to or from Bluewater then your journey time may be shorter as route 96 uses the Fastrack bus-only road between Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater.

Our Hopper fare means there would be no additional fare for changing between TfL buses within one hour. However, depending on your destination, you may need to use a non-TfL bus route for journeys east of Dartford. Non-TfL buses are not covered by the Hopper fare and would be at additional cost.

For more information on alternative bus routes please see the document below.

Alternative Bus Routes, Bus Stops and Where to Change Buses (PDF 1.08MB)

For more information on non-TfL buses in the Dartford area please visit travelinesoutheast.org.uk, call Traveline on 0871 200 2233 (charges apply), or visit kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/travelling-around-kent/bus-travel.

Impact on protected groups

We have undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA). This will be reviewed following the consultation. The EqIA examines what impact (positive or negative) all of the proposed route changes have on customers with characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010.

We consider the impacts of bus service change proposals on equality groups throughout the planning process ensuring, where possible, effective mitigations are in place where no viable alternative is available. The EqIA can be found below.

Equality Impact Assessment (PDF 90KB)

33 Why are we consulting?

Buses play a unique role in the life of London. They are the most accessible form of public transport and they provide the widest and densest network of travel options for distances that are too long to walk or cycle. Good reliable bus services are fundamental to how our customers move around the city.

However the way our customers are using the bus network is changing. For this reason we continuously monitor the network to understand where demand is increasing or falling. This helps us determine whether or not we are providing services that effectively match customer demand.

When we propose a change to the bus network we run a public consultation to help us understand more about how our proposals may impact on our customers and stakeholders.

Have your say

We would like to know what you think about our proposed changes. Your comments and suggestions will help inform our final decision making.

Please give us your views by completing the online survey below by Tuesday 10 September 2019.

Alternatively, you can:

• email us at [email protected]

• write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

• call us on 0343 222 1155*

You can also request copies of the above consultation materials and a survey form on paper, in Braille, large text or another language by contacting us as above.

Please state “Dartford and Crayford bus consultation” when contacting us.

* Service and network charges may apply. See tfl.gov.uk/terms for details.

34 A2 Letter

35 A3 Leaflet

36 A4 Emails to Public

• A4.1 Email to public

37 • A4.2 Email to Stakeholders

38 A5 TfL Poster

39 A6 Bus Status Update Alert Text Route 96

[No message]

Route 428

Status alert for route 428

Proposed Changes to Routes 428 and 492 from January 2020: For route 428 we are proposing to no longer run this route between Crayford and Bluewater, run this route with double deck buses instead of single deck buses and no longer operate three schoolday-only peak hour journeys. There would be no other change to frequency and buses would continue to run every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes. For route 492 we are proposing to no longer run this route between Dartford town centre and Bluewater. Customers that wish to travel to/from Dartford, Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater could interchange at Crayford or Dartford to/from route 96

Additional information

Find out more and let us have your views by Tuesday 10 September [web link to https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/96-428-492/ ]

Route 492

Status alert for route 492

Additional information

Find out more and let us have your views by Tuesday 10 September [web link to https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/96-428-492/ ]

40 A7 Non-TfL/Campaign posters observed

41 Appendix B: Stakeholders

The below organisations were directly contacted by TfL and invited to respond to the consultation.

17-24-30 A B O U T A2Dominion Homes Limited Access in London Action for Blind People Action on Disability and Work UK Action on Hearing Loss Active Horizons ADHD & Me Advance Housing and Support Limited Advocacy for All Advocacy Project Affinity Sutton Homes Limited Age Concern London Age UK Age UK Bexley Age UK Bromley & Greenwich Age UK London Age UK North West Kent Age UK Orpington & District Alliance Healthcare Alzheimer's Society AmicusHorizon Limited Anchor Trust Ann Frye Another Girl Another Planet Anxiety Alliance Anxiety Alliance / The Health Experts Anxiety UK Arriva Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Aspire Association of Town Centre Management ATOMONOUS Attitude is Everything Auxins-Social Mobility Badaccessuk Bean Parish Council Bean Primary School

42 Bean Residents Association Belvedere Community Forum / Belvedere Asian Women's Group Belvedere Forum Beth’s Grammar School Better Transport Bexley Accessible Transport Scheme Bexley Adolescent Support Service (BASS) - Including Porchlight Bexley African Caribbean Community Association (BACCA) Bexley Association of Turkish Speakers (BATS) Bexley Children and Family Centres Bexley Churches Housing Association Limited Bexley Citizens' Advice Bureau Bexley Civic Society Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group Bexley Community Housing Association Bexley Crossroads Care Limited Bexley Dodgers Boccia Club Bexley Grammar School Bexley Gujarati Samaj Bexley Information, Advice and Support Service Bexley Library Service Bexley Mencap Bexley Moorings Bexley Neighbourhood Watch Bexley Pensioners Forum Bexley Snap Bexley Voice Bexley Voluntary Service Council Bexley Women's Aid Bexley Young Carers BexleyFamily Information Service Bexleyheath & Crayford Waterside Women's Institute Bexleyheath & District Club for the Disabled Bexleyheath Academy Bexleyheath BID Bexleyheath Business Improvement District Bexley's Children with Disabilities Team Beyond Barriers Bird College of Dance Birkbeck Primary School Bluewater Brains Trust Bridging The Gap South East British Medical Association British Polio Fellowship

43 British Youth Council (BYC) Bromley & District Consumer Group Bromley BID Bromley Mencap Bromley Mobility Forum Bromley Parent Voice Bromley Safer Transport Team Bromley Disabled Children's team Buses4homeless Campaign for Better Transport Campaign for Better Transport London branch Capital City School Sport Partnership Carers First Carers Information Service Carers' Support (Bexley) CBI CCG Greenwich Celebrations Theatrical Group centre for accessible environments Centrepieces Mental Health Arts Project Charcot-Marie-Tooth UK Charlton Athletic Community Trust Chauffeur and Executive Association Chislehurst & Sidcup Grammar School Chislehurst and Sidcup Housing Association Choice Support Christ Church (Erith) Church of England Primary School Citizens Advice in North & West Kent Citizens UK Citymapper Cleeve Park School Cold Blow Crescent Residents' Association Cold Blow Residents Association Comms team Bexley Community Links Bromley Computer Cab Confederation of Passenger transport Connect Contact a Family CoolTan Arts Co-operative Development Society Limited Crayford Community Centre Crayford Forum Craymill Housing Co-operative Limited DABD

44 Danson Children & Family Centre Danson Youth Trust Darenth Parish Council Dartford Adult Education Centre Dartford Borough Council Dartford Grammar School Dartford Grammar School for Girls Dartford parkrun Dartford Primary Academy Dartford Science and Technology College Dartford Tenants' and Leaseholders' Forum Dartford, Gravesham & Swanley Mind Dbrief Monthly Deaf Drop In DeafBlind UK Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK Disabled Go Disabled Motoring Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Disire DMD Pathfinders Dogs for Good Douglas Campbell Consulting DPTAC Duchenne UK Dyslexia Association of Bexley Bromley Greenwich & Lewisham East and South East London Thames Gateway Transport Partnership East Homes Limited East London Bus and Coach Company Ltd/ South East London and Kent Bus Company Ltd East London Vision Ehlers Danlos Support UK End Violence Against Women English Heritage Ensignbus Erith and District Hospital Erith Riverside Residents' Association Erith Town Forum Essex County Council ETOA – European tourism association European Dysmelia Reference Information Centre Everyday Sexism experts by experience Eyes For Success Family Lives

45 Fawcett Society Finding Your Feet / South East London Vision Fleetdown Primary School Forsters Bexley school Freelance equality trainer Friends of Capital Transport Friends of the Earth Future Inclusion Galop GBM Drivers Gendered Intelligence Generate Opportunities Ltd. GIRES GirlGuiding GLA Gravel Hill School Gravesend Churches Housing Association Greater London Authority Greater London Forum for Older People Greater London Forum for the Elderly Greenacre (Dartford) Residents' Association Greenwich Family Information Service Greenwich Mums Greenwich Safer Transport Team Greenwich Society Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Haberdashers' Aske's Crayford Academy Haberdashers' Aske's Crayford Temple Grove Haberdashers' Aske's Slade Green Temple Grove Habinteg Housing Association Limited HAVEN Hazel Housing Co-operative Limited HeadStart Kent Health Poverty Action Healthwatch Bexley Healthwatch Kent Healthy Living Centre Dartford Healthy London Partnership Hearing Dogs UK Hexagon Housing Association Limited HHCD/RCA/HnS Hollaback! Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School Holy Trinity Lamorbey CE Primary School Hope Community School

46 Housing & Care 21 Howbury Friends Human Rights & Equalities Network Hurst Community Centre Hurstmere School for Boys Hyde Housing Association Limited Inclusion London Independent Disability Advisory Group Insight Bexley Inspire Community Trust Institute for Sustainability Inter Faith Network Interactive UK / London Sports Forum for Disabled People Invicta Health Jaquets Court Residents' Association John Hersov and Co Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People (JCMD) Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Keniston Housing Association Limited Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust Kent Association for the Blind (Bromley) / Sight Centre in Bromley Kent Association for the Blind (West) Kent Carers Matter Kent County Council Kent Youth County Council King Henry School Lamorbey Residents' Association LB Bexley LB Bromley LB of Bromley Residents Association Learning & Enterprise College Bexley Learning Disabled service User Leonard Cheshire Licenced Private Hire Car Association Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Littlebrook Hospital Living Streets Livingstone Community Hospital London & Quadrant Housing Trust London Ambulance Service London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London Assembly Green Party Group London Borough of Bromley London Cab Drivers Club

47 London Councils London European Partnership for Transport London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority London Fire Brigade London First London Gypsies & Travellers London Hire Ltd London Living Streets London Older People's Strategy Group London Omnibus Traction Society London Private Hire Board London Region National Pensioners Convention London Road Safety Council London South East Colleges London Strategic Health Authority London Suburban Taxi-drivers' Coalition London Taxi PR London TravelWatch London Vision London Visual Impairment Forum Longfield Academy Look Ahead Mayplace Primary School MEGAN CIC Mencap Merton Court Preparatory School METRO Metro Charity Metropolitan Police - Community Police Metropolitan Police Service MIND Mind in Bexley Moat Homes Limited Mount Green Housing Association Limited Mount Residents' Association MS Society Mumderground Mumsnet myself and 3cs National Autistic Society National Express Ltd National Federation of the Blind National Trust NCT Netmums

48 Network Rail Limited New Horizons Federation NFB London Branch NFBUK NHS Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group NHS Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust NHS Dartford Gravesham and Swanley CCG NHS London NHS South East London No Panic Normandy Primary School North Cray Neighbourhood Centre North Cray Residents' Association North Kent Mind North West Kent Alternative Provision Service Northumberland Heath Community Forum Notting Hill Housing Trust NUS Nutmeg Oakfield Primary Academy Office for Disability Issues (DWP) OK Omega Housing Limited OnCue Transport One Housing Group Limited Orbit Group Limited Orbit South Housing Association Limited Orchard Primary School Organisation of Blind Afro Caribbeans (OBAC) Orpington BID Orpington District Transport Users Association Our Lady's Catholic Primary School Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust Pan-London Dementia Alliance Parkinson’s UK Parkinson's UK Parkside Community Centre Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) PCOrentals PCS (Public & Commercial Services Union) Peabody Group Peareswood Primary School Perryview Housing Co-operative Limited Porchlight Portaramp UK Limited

49 President National Federation of the Blind of the UK Prevention Team (Healthy London Partnership) Primary/Secondary Schools Princes' Community Forum Prince's Trust PrioritEyes Ltd Private individual Private Hire Board Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People Race Equality Foundation RB Greenwich Reach out East Reach out East React Accessibility Ltd Real Real – Local Voices Refugee Action Re-Instate Ltd Research Institute for Disabled Consumers Rethink Retired RLSB RMT London Taxi RMT Union RNIB Road Danger Reduction Forum RoadPeace Rose Bruford College Royal Association for Deaf people Royal Borough of Greenwich Royal London Society for Blind People Royal Park Primary Academy Royal Society of Blind Children Sanctuary Housing Association SCMSTC Scope Sense Shenstone School Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited Sidcup Community Group Sidcup Partners Slade Green Community Forum Social Arts for Education (S.A.F.E.) South East London Chamber of Commerce South East London Vision

50 South Greenwich Forum Southeastern railway Southern Housing Group Limited Special Needs Scouts Spires Residents' Association St Anselm's Catholic Primary School St Catherine's Catholic Primary/Secondary Schools St Catherine's Catholic School for Girls St Columba's Catholic Boys' School St Joseph's Catholic Primary School St Paulinus Church of England Primary School St Paul's (Slade Green) C of E Primary School St Peter Chanel Catholic Primary School Stagecoach Stay Safe Stone St Mary's CE Primary School Stone House Hospital Stone Lodge School Stone Parish Council Stonewall Strategic Access Panel Stroke Association Surrey County Council Sustrans Suzy Lamplugh Swanscombe And Greenhithe Residents’ Association Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council Teachers' Housing Association Limited Team Margot Temple Hill Primary Academy Terrence Higgins Trust The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind The Brent Primary School The British Dyslexia Association The Children's Trust The Driver-Guides Association The Gateway Primary Academy The Gr@nd The Langton Way Residentd Association The Leigh Academy The Leigh UTC The Riverside Group Limited The Salvation Army Thomas Pocklington Trust Thoughtistic/tfa

51 Three Faiths Forum Thurrock Borough Council Tommy's Tower Transit Operations Town and Country Housing Group Townley Grammar School Townshend Close Housing Co-operative Limited Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK Transport Focus Transport for All Transport for London Tree Estate Community Centre Trinity Church of England School Twelve Winds Uber UK Parliament Unemployed Unions Together Unite Unite the Union Upton Day Hospital Vision 2020 Volunteer Centre North West Kent Walk London Wandle Housing Association Limited Waterstone Park Residents Association Wentworth Primary School West Hill Primary Academy West Kent Housing Association West Lodge School Westgate Primary School Wheelchairtaxis.net Wheels for Wellbeing Whitworth Housing Co-operative Limited Whizz-Kidz Wilmington Academy Wilmington Grammar School for Boys Wilmington Grammar School for Girls Women in Transport World Autism Day WSA XbyX Bromley / Bromley Mobility Forum YMCA Young Epilepsy

52 Youth Action Diversity Trust Youth Ngage

53 Appendix C: Online Survey Questions

The questions of the online survey are set out below; in the order they were asked. All questions were voluntary

Questions about our proposals

1. Which of these bus routes do you use and how often do you use them?

• Route 428 • Route 492 • Route 96

[Each item had the following possible Responses: Daily, Several times a week, Once a week, Occasionally, Rarely, Never

2. How do you think the proposed changes to route 428 would affect your journeys? • Journey time: -- Please Select -- • Amount of interchange -- Please Select -- • Comfort (space available on bus) -- Please Select -- • Frequency of service -- Please Select --

[Each item had the following possible responses: Increase; Decrease; Stay the same; Don’t know; Not applicable]

3. How do you think the proposed changes to route 492 would affect your journeys? • Journey time: -- Please Select -- • Amount of interchange -- Please Select -- • Comfort (space available on bus) -- Please Select -- • Frequency of service -- Please Select --

[Each item had the following possible responses: Increase; Decrease; Stay the same; Don’t know; Not applicable]

4. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to routes 428 or 492? Please state which route(s) you are referring to. [Free Text Comments]

5. Do you have any feedback regarding the changes in Dartford town centre (routes 96, 428 and 492) that were introduced on 1 July 2019? [Free Text Comments]

6. Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)? [No, Yes, Yes + Free Text Comments]

Questions about the respondent

54 7. What is your name?

8. What is your email address?

9. What is your postcode?

10. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:

11. What types of transport do you normally use locally (please tick all boxes that apply)? Private car, Taxi, Van, Lorry, Bus, Coach, Bicycle, Walk, Tube, Train, Motorcycle/scooter

12. How did you hear about this consultation? Email from TfL, Letter from TfL, Social media, Media/press, Other

13. Do you have any comments about this consultation (e.g. printed materials, website, events etc.)?

Questions for equality monitoring

Additional voluntary questions were asked for the purposes of equality monitoring. Responses to these questions are not analysed as part of the consultation.

55 Appendix D: Code Frame

A ‘code frame’ is, essentially, a list of all the issues raised in response to a question. It is a method used to identify how many times the same point has been made using slightly different words.

The code frame tables in this appendix list the issues raised for each open text question in the consultation, and the number of responses which mentioned each issue.

D1 Issues raised in response to Question 4 –‘Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to routes 428 or 492? Please state which route(s) you are referring to’

Further information Freq

What will happen to London R oad? 1 What bus services will there be for people who live and work in S tone? 2 Will Greenhithe residents get subsidised bus fares on other routes? 1 Is there going to be a replacement for the 492? 3 Do you plan to facilitate the use of the Oyster card on the green buses? 1 Will there be an increase in 96 bus? 2 What will be the stops between Dartford and Bluewater? 1 Will the hopper price for changing buses within 1 hr apply on a Dartford P ass? 1 428: Are you trying to cancel this service altogether? 1 Will the 96 stop at L ivingstone Hospital? 1 Neg ative Freq

Increased Duration of J ourney -More changes 127 Increased Duration of J ourney -Have to walk 134 Increased Duration of J ourney -Lower bus frequency 12 Increased Duration of J ourney -Missed buses due to overcrowding 28 Increased C ost of J ourney -Need to pay for non-TfL services 155 Increased C ost of J ourney -Non TfL bus costs too high 132 Increased Car Use -Increased congestion 65 Increased Car Use -E nvironmental impact 37 S ecurity/Safety C oncern -Walking 31 S ecurity/Safety C oncern -A t bus stops 16

56 S ecurity/Safety C oncern -Overcrowding on buses 12 C hanges will increase fare costs 101 Adverse impacts on disabled people/those with restricted/limited mobility issues 205 Adverse impacts on older people 217 Adverse impacts on students/younger people 455 Adverse impacts on hospital patients 94 R emoving 428/492 will put pressure on the 96 69 Impact on Business -R eduction in customers/sales 19 Impact on Business -S taff cannot g et to work eas ily or at all 8 Generally negative / Fully oppose to the proposed changes 328 Partially opposed to the proposed changes 4 C hanges will be disruptive 9 428/492: Keep it as it is / Proposal doesn’t change anything 165 492: C hanges will be an inconvenience 806 428: C hanges will be an inconvenience 284 C oncern: This proposal reduces bus route options to Darent Valley Hospital 122 TfL should not be servicing Kent 1 Proposals just to save TfL money 10 Heath and S afety C oncern - threat to s elf 36 96 does not s top at any s tops along this route as it g oes s traig ht to B luewater 49 96 will become less reliable/choices of buses will be limited 50 Increased journey time -T o and from work etc 316 Adverse impact on every day life/shopping/other 105 Inconvenience to change buses 162 C hanges will reduce bus stops near S tone Lodge 1 S afety/Security: C oncern: Double decker buses not suitable for the s mall roads /routes 11 Impact will be an inconvenience to people with prams and or shopping 79 492/96 is already busy/overcrowded/running at full capacity 78 C oncern: This proposal reduces bus route options to Darent Valley and/or Livingstone H os pital 11 S ecurity/Safety C oncern -C ycling 1 Financial impact/not everyone can afford non TfL services/cabs/cars 52 Non TFL buses are less reliable/over crowded/not suitable/inadequate/other 32 S afety and S ecurity: C hange of buses/single bus journeys are safer 24 C hanges will cause distress resulting in changes or losses of job/income /move areas/buy 9

57 car/use cab in the area

C hanges won't fix existing traffic issues 2 E xisting services are already overcrowded/busy/poor/unreliable 29 Increased congestion and or Pollution on roads /pavements/bus stops 33 Positive Freq

Fully support/Generally support proposal 7 Partially support the proposed changes 2 The introduction of double decker buses would significantly improve journey's 12 492: Agree changes will improve the route 5 S upport the changes on the 428 route 8 492: C onditionally agree as long as it still serves B exley to C rayford 1 428: C onditionally agree that route will become reliable but interchange is inconvenient 1 C onditionally support changes to 492 if more stops are added on 96 3 Suggestion Freq

C hange Proposed R oute -of 492 21 C hange Proposed R oute -O ther R oute 8 C hange Proposed R oute -More stops on 96 route 52 C hange stops on 96 13 Increase Frequency -of 96 14 Increase Frequency -of 492 83 Increase Frequency -of 428 32 C hange Proposed R oute -of 96 23 C hange Proposed R oute -of 428 61 O ther Authority or operator should provide services rather than just TfL 2 R oute 96/492 should be a 24-hour service 3 Merge the 428 with the 469 1 Use double-deck buses to improve journeys and/or capacity on the route 11 R oute could be maintained solely on Monday to Friday during school times only to serve the public 1 A minimum of two routes should serve Bluewater 4 Maybe a compromise with at least one bus an hour going to the hospital on 428 route would be the resolution 1 Make full route at peak times and reduce the route off peak 8 Decrease frequency of the 96 6 Make the 492 a single-decker 9

58 We need buses to service the London R oad area 10 At least one of the routes should serve Bluewater 3 A service should be available to Darent Valley Hospital 15 Prefer service of 492 to be reduced rather than have no service at all 3 Keep single decker buses for 428 3 It is essential that a TFL bus stops in between Dartford town centre and Darenth Hospital 2 Make improvements to street lighting, paving etc if we are expected to walk 2 Reduce frequency of other services instead 4 Timetables of bus route(s) should be better managed 1 C oncerned authorities should look into reducing traffic and congestion 1 C an route 492 at least share the same bus stop as route 96 at Bexleyheath S hopping centre 1 More 96 and or 428 buses are needed 2 L imit the use of child bus passes to school times only 1 R educe the route/frequency of the 428 2 R educe bus service to Darent Valley Hospital 1 There should be more regular services around Darent Valley Hospital 1 I would greatly appreciate if you will continue to stop at S henley R oad 1 E xtend the fas t track s ervice to incorporate wes t D artford 1 A link is needed between E rith and Darent Valley Hospital 2 Increase service on the B14 bus route. 1 S uggestion: Keep single decker buses for 428 3 Other Freq

Not relevant to proposals 7 Don’t live in the area/Not affected/Can't comment 1

D2 Issues raised in response to Question 5 –‘Do you have any feedback regarding the changes in Dartford town centre (routes 96, 428 and 492) that were introduced on 1 July 2019?’

Further information Freq

Is the change permanent? 3

What will happen to the stops along London roads if no buses will stop here? 1

Is Dartford Borough C ouncil proposing to have one flow of traffic through the high street? 1

I presume this was only a temporary arrangement? 1

59 Neg ative Freq

General negative 84

F ully oppose the new layout in the town centre 5

Unclear where bus stops have moved to 8

New stops in bad locations for serving the town centre 13

C hanges weren't sufficiently advertised 6

Impact on Business -R eduction in customers/sales 9

Increased Car Use -E nvironmental impact 3

S afety/Security concern 8

S hould be reinstated to how it was previously 9

C hanges will have increased pollution 2

Inconvenience caused due to cutting down on bus stops 8

Limited shelter and seats at bus stops 6

There is currently no bus time tables for the 428, 492 and 96 2

The area for the bus stops is not large enough to accommodate all the buses 1

C oncerns for health 4 Waited longer than expected for a bus and/or finding the new bus were hard to find due to 2 signs not being clear Positive Freq

P artially P ositive -Inconveniences people in Dartford. 1

P artially P ositive -It is good but is not practical in busy periods 1 C onditional S upport - As long as school children and the less than able can get to their 1 primary destinations

C onditional S upport -Only if the 492 bus carries on serving every stop up to Bluewater 1 P artially P ositive -The only exception is the 96 stopping at Darent valley as this was a very 1 good change

S upportive as long as buses stop at multiple stops in Dartford 1 Suggestion Freq

Relocate stops back to where they were before 2

R elocate s tops 3

Increase number of s tops in the town centre 6

96 Increase number of bus stops 7

S ervice needs to be accessible to and from Bluewater via Dartford. 1 Move 96, 428 and 492 forward and leave the area for the special Arriva buses to avoid clutter 1 at the s top

A nother s top is needed at the bottom of Wes t H ill 14

S uggest a new bus stop is needed on Highfield R oad 1

60 S uggest a new bus stop in the Orchard area 2

S uggest a new bus stop at Home Gardens 1

More time tables /signs at bus stops and other suitable places 6 C an there be another westbound stop on the 96 near the east end of the high street to match 1 the westbound stop

F ix current congestion issues 2

Introduce another stop between Dartford station and east hill 2

It would be nice if there were more seating or shelters 5

S hould be a stop between Dartford station and S hepards Lane bus stop 2

Diverting the traffic would have been better instead 1 There should be a bus stop on the A226 near to the E ssex R oad pedestrian crossing in the 1 C rayford direction Its better to move the proposed new bus station more close to the roundabout of the Dartford 1 R ail station

There should be a questionnaire about these changes 1

S hould be a stop at Instone R oad 1

C ould the existing services continue via Market S treet and stop in L owfield S treet 2

Further assessment of these arrangements is required 1

Increase frequency of route of 96 1

Increase frequency of route 429 1

S upport changing the London bound routes to stop near Dartford S tation 1 Other Freq

Haven’t used on peak times 1

Not s ure 4 Online app was still saying the buses were stopping on the old stops causing a lot of 1 inconvenience

The countdown bus apps has not been updated 1

D3 Issues raised in response to the open text element of Question 6 – ‘Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)?

Further information Freq

Is everyone aware of what this consultation is about? 4

Is everyone being considered? 2 Neg ative Freq The E QIA hasn't considered people with mobility issues/older people/the young/ the vulnerable /people with disabilities or other groups. 146

61 Don't agree with EqIA assessment 39

Sceptical about EqIA process 3

Find the EqIA process discriminatory 10

Raises safety/security concerns 2

The proposal should be reconsidered 2

Impatient bus drivers don’t always stop on this route 1

The changes would have an impact on the community 7

Impacts on workers and or working hours 1

No details provided of the impact on users of these routes 1 Generally negative opinions about the EqIA process 11 Positive Freq

Generally supportive of the EqIA process 6 Suggestion Freq

The views of older people and disabled people need to be considered 1

TfL should consult with some of the groups covered by the EqIA 1 Other Freq

Member of vulnerable group (affordability) 1

Other comment: Didn't read this 2

Don't understand the question 9

Gender, race etc. not felt to matter with regard to catching a bus 1

Not relevant to proposals 4

Didn't know that proposal had an EqIA 1

D4 Issues raised in response to the open text element of Question 13 – ‘Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material’

Neg ative

Opposed to consultation 7

Consultation poorly advertised and/ or lacking in information 106

Sceptical about consultation process 22

IT issues experienced 1

Insufficient, inaccurate or unclear information 8

Older adult don't necessarily have access to internet to get access to the consultation 5

62 Lack of assessment 2

Poor quality/not good/badly planned 5

Issues with questionnaire 4 Not all the people will have the opportunity to respond due to summer holidays/bad 3 timing

Difficult to understand/read and view maps 2

Consultation period was too short 1

Inaccurate or incorrect words/language/grammar 1 Positive

Generally positive 16 Suggestion

Advertise via letter 7 Local authority should promote this consultation especially to younger people (eg via 1 schools)

There should be signs at affected bus stops and local residents should get flyers 5

Posters advertising on the bus routes affected would be a good idea 2

Ask people on the bus 1

The proposal should be publicly detailed on the buses involved 1

Leaflets should have been provided at the hospitals/schools/other 1 Other

Comment not relevant to proposals 9

What is a drop-in session? 1

63 Appendix E: Summaries of Stakeholder Responses

This section summarises each of the responses we received from respondents whom we would consider to be ‘stakeholders’. These summaries are included only in order to assist readers of this report to understand in broad terms what issues stakeholders raised with us. The original, verbatim response from each stakeholder were analysed to identify the issues raised.

We identified as a ‘stakeholder’ all those respondents we judged are notable and reasonably well known amongst the public. This includes London’s local authorities, major transport groups, local neighbourhood or residents associations, major charities, businesses and business groups and industry associations.

E1 Local authorities & statutory bodies London Borough of Bexley Council

‘Strongly object[ed]’, claiming the proposals to be a decline in the Borough’s public transport offer and unacceptable in a growth borough. Stated that proposals would (i)have adverse impacts on significant number of residents/passengers –in particular users of Darent Valley Hospital, (ii)reduce bus provision when public transport is to be promoted, and (iii)don’t support new or improved bus services in outer London, as set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Bexley Labour Group (ie London Borough of Bexley’s Labour Councillors)

Disappointed that the 428 will end at Crayford and no longer go to Darent Valley Hospital or Bluewater. Acknowledged TfL’s budgetary constraints but opposed proposals as they (i)go against TfL justifications for expanding the 96 route to Darent Valley Hospital in 2017, (ii)negatively impact those from Bexley needing to access the hospital, (iii)include an ‘unacceptable’ 100 metre interchange between the 428 and 96.Expressed concerns at the removeal of school day only peak time 428 buses and supported making all buses on the route double-deck ones. Supported terminating 492 in Dartford as it may ‘improve reliability and punctuality’ of one the poorest performing routes in Bexley’ Dartford Borough Council & Kent County Council (joint response)

DBC and KCC jointly responded to object to the proposals, highlighting several negative impacts in detail: (i)Extra changes, waits and longer journey times for thousands of passengers travelling between Erith and Sidcup in Greater London, Dartford and Bluewater each day, (ii)increased costs for passengers who would no longer be able to complete journeys into or out of the area east of the new termination points without having to change to more expensive non-TfL buses (where these are available), (iii)safety and security concerns with increased interchanges, including particular hardship for hospital users and those who may be or feel vulnerable.Highlighted the strength of feedback received from local residents,

64 and suggested that proposals would conflict with key policy areas for themselves and TfL. Thanked TfL for extending the consultation time available to schools, but requested ‘better understanding of the justification and how the proposed changes outweigh the impact on bus customers’. Expressed a keeness to continue to engage with TfL in order to ‘ensure that residents and bus passengers west of Dartford Town Centre as well as those along London Road in the Stone Area do not completely suffer the loss of connectivity between Bexley, Dartford and Bluewater as a result of the proposed changes to route 492.’ Additionally raised concerns for the loss of connectivity for Bexley residents ‘who play a critical part in the life and economy of Dartford Borough, whether that be in the hospital, schools or private businesses.’ Dartford Borough Council (supplementary individual response)

In addition to the joint response with Kent County Council, Dartford Borough Council submitted a supplementary response to ‘express its strong dissatisfaction and objection to the proposals’. Highlighted ‘ huge public response’ to the proposals and their ‘unacceptable impacts…on critical aspects of everyday life’. Provided additional detail/context regarding impacts to the newly opened secondary school at Stone and ighlighted the number of elderly, lone and non-car residents between Dartford and Bluewater for whom the current bus service is a ‘lifeline’. Flagged that withdrawal of the 492 service past Dartford town centre, in particular, would undermine the joint efforts that are being made between TfL and the Council with regard to the transport network in the area. Dartford Labour Group (ie Dartford Council’s Labour Councillors) Stated that they –supported by 1,300 petition signatories- are ‘overwhelmingly against the proposed changes to the 492 and 428 bus services’. Highlighted (i)that these routes are critical for residents’ healthcare, commuting and shopping needs (ii)the financial implications, particularly for low income households (iii)that the changes could bring challenges to people with developmental disorders or physical disabilities, (iv)the ‘large crossover of temporary accommodation between Bexley, Greenwich and Dartford Borough Councils’, (v)that not only would people miss or avoid medical treatments without these services, but that extra pressure would be put upon already stretched ambulance/patient transport systems as a result. Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council

Objected to the proposed changes, in particular those to bus route 492. Stone Parish Council

Is ‘extremely disappointed’ with proposals. Stated that they will (i)cause a u-turn in the usage of public transport in the parish, (ii)leave the new secondary school and permitted 1,000 home development in the parish without transport infrastructure, (iii)cause overcrowding, financial stress/strain, longer journey times, additional interchanges for lots of school and work journeys into and out of the parish (v)create a high density residential area with no connection to its hospital (vi)conflict with MTS/TfL policy, DBC and KCC policies on economic and housing growth, sustainable travel, infrastructure and air quality. Councillor Kelly Grehan (Councillor for Stone House ward, Dartford)

65 ‘Very concerned’ at loss of direct link to and from Darent Valley hospital area. Including those traveling into or from Bexley. Highlighted (i)issues of safety at interchanges, journey times and costs from cross-ticketing (ii)heavy impacts on students and staff at the new Stone Lodge School and players/spectators at the new rugby club there, (iii)that Bexley residents, studying, working or in childcare in Dartford (as well as vice versa) would be negatively impacted by the proposals. Councillors Gower, Pallen and Smith (Councillors for Bexleyheath ward, Bexley)

Unable to support the proposals. Expressed particular concern for hospital users, and those seeking other ‘important services and facilities outside the borough.’ Stated that proposals discourage use of public transport, and ‘fly in the face’ of the Mayor’s policy to support new and improved bus services in outer London.

E2 Government departments, parliamentary bodies & politicians Gareth Johnson MP (MP for Dartford)

Stated that proposals would have serious negative consequences and need to be reconsidered to reflect local needs. Highlighted that (i)these impacted bus routes are an important part to the area’s current and future growth (ii)roads would become more congested and air quality would be reduced (iii)school children and patients at Darent Valley Hospital would suffer in particular, and (iv)the proposals conflict with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Additionally passed on concerns raised by constituents, including cost implications. Teresa Pearce MP (MP for Erith and Thamesmead)

Opposed changes to the 428, particularly its impact on those travelling to/from Darent Valley Hospital. Additional highlighted increased journey times, unacceptable interchange, and cost increases for the most vulnerable. Suggested keeping the current service, or redesigning the proposed interchange as a minimum revision to the proposals. Expressed concern re removal of supplementary 428s at school time and questioned the rationale/which data supports the curtailment of the 428 as it seems only to worsen travel to a hospital, at peak times and to schools. David Evennett MP (MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Requested the changes to 428 be reconsidered. Stated that elderly residents using the hospital will suffer due to worsened journey times and interchanges. Highlighted that he has previously raised concerns to TfL regarding the capacity on the 428 at school times; removing the three school day-only peak hour journeys is a further cause for concern in this regard. James Brokenshire MP (MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Stated concern over the proposed changes to the 492, highlighting Bluewater is an extremely popular destination. Expressed a strong preference to retain the 492 service as it is, and requested bolstering the 96 service be investigated if not.

66 E3 Greater London Authority Gareth Bacon AM (AM Bexley and Bromley, Leader GLA conservatives)

Stated that (i)proposals will materially affect residents living East of Crayford, (ii)there will be no direct link between Erith/Slade Green and Dartford (iii)removal of the additional school-time 428 buses will reduce capacity at this time even with shift to double-deck vehicles, (iv)Interchanges will be stressful, (v)proposals don’t align with Mayor of London’s’ promise that reducing buses in central London will lead to ‘increases in bus services in outer London’. Highlighted that proposals do not include a single interchange point, requested that if the route has to be curtailed then it must be at a location where people get off the 428 and on to their next bus. Requested that TfL reconsider this decision, which penalises an outer London Borough.

E4 Accessibility Groups Bexley Mencap

Stated that proposals are not a good idea, as ‘people with learning disabilities find changes hard and packed buses are very stressful to travel on‘. Highlighted that proposals will: (i)make the 96 bus even more crowded, (ii)increase the number of changes, (iii)create difficult changes (the 96 interchange location would be too far away and too crowded), and (iv)limit access to the hospital. Suggested changing one route at a time, rather than changing two at once.

E5 Transport and road user groups London TravelWatch

Stated that (i)Darent Valley Hospital should be serviced by TfL, and (ii)the proposed interchange in Crayford is additional and involves navigating a gyratory which will be a problem for some passengers.

E6 Businesses, employers and venues Stagecoach

Stated that it does not believe the proposals would lead to more road traffic in the area. Raised that they may however create some capacity issues on the remaining TfL buses, noting that: (i)free parking at Bluewater allows commuters to park there and take a bus to Dartford to catch London-Bound trains, (ii)buses serving Darent Valley Hospital may be crowded at busy times –as currently experienced on buses heading towards Woolwich, (iii)the high number of school students in the Bluewater- Dartford-Crayford corridor would only be served by the 96, which is already busy at peak times.

67 E7 Local interest groups North Cray Residents Association

Stated that local residents had raised concerns regarding the need to change bus when travelling between North Cray and Bluewater. Highlighted concerns that the connection may be delayed or cancelled leaving passengers stranded at the intermediate point and risking their safety, particularly after dark in the winter period whilst they wait for a connection. Erith Library Knitting Group Stated that removal of the 428 service between Erith and Bluewater will seriously affect its members -many of whom are older and rely on the bus service for general mobility, accessing the tailored facilities at Bluewater, and attending Darent Valley for personal medical requirements as well as visiting friends as relatives. Highlighted that the walk that would be required to interchange at Crayford and the extended journey time would be unwelcome. Identified the financial challenges of any alternatives (eg taxi) and the desire for TfL to provide a range of bus routes, as in more central Boroughs. Questioned whether the ‘serious’ disadvantages and negative impacts caused by the proposals were in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act.

E8 Schools Stone Lodge School

Explained that this is a new school, which opened in September 2019 and will be 1450 pupils when all year groups are in place. Informed that approximately 33% of the first year’s students come from Crayford/Bexleyheath/Erith. Stated that pupils rely on the bus and their journey times will double and costs will increase. This will lead to more car journeys and thus more congestion/air pollution -or to financial stress to parents and students where the car is not an option. Requested TfL run a reduced service only at peak school hours instead of cancelling. Haberdasher’s Aske’s Crayford Academy

Secondary School whose pupils particularly use the 428 between Crayford and Erith. Expressed serious concern for the safety of students due to the reduction of school day bus service in the afternoon. Highlighted that school finishes at 15:15 so students would all be waiting for the 15:30 which would lead to large numbers of students waiting on narrow pavements, causing issues for local residents (complaints in the past were addressed by the more frequent buses). If students are unable to access the bus due to overcrowding, they would be left waiting until the next bus at 15:46, in addition to existing issues of students being late to school as buses are too crowded for them to get on. Additionally provided a sample of letters from students flagging such issues. Beth’s School

68 Highlighted that the 492 is a valuable community facility and removing it would make young student's journey to and from school much more difficult, and could leave them vulnerable. Cleeve Park School

Requested an increased service to the B14 bus route due to overcrowding meaning that students are anxious and often late either getting to, or setting off home from, school

E9 Others NHS Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley Clinical Commissioning Group

Commission health care services on behalf of approx. 270,000 people, covering 100 square miles. Flagged concerns that the proposals ‘will severely restrict access to NHS healthcare services for a significant proportion of the local population the CCG serves‘. Highlighted that Darent Valley Hospital is the only acute hospital for the CCG population/area and is one of three Hyper-acute Specialist Stroke Units. It is also a proposed site for an Urgent Treatment Centre for local people in DGS. Stated that CCG data indicates that 70% of people attending Darent Valley in 2018/19 came from Dartford Gravesham and Swanley, and ‘families with young children, people with disabilities, elderly residents and others from the socio-economically deprived areas of the county’ would be most affected by the proposals. Informed that parking constraints and local road congestion means that many staff and patients rely on direct buses from Bluewater to get to the hospital having parked their cars at the shopping centre. Metropolitan Police Officers

Responses received from police officers with responsibility for areas or topics pertinent to the proposals. Flagged concerns regarding the proposed interchange at Crayford, particularly for less mobile or otherwise vulnerable people looking to cross this fast road. Suggested investigating making the 428 a circular route/using the roundabout as a way to limit this. Stated that the proposals would significantly impact the students of local schools as the removal of the extra peak time 428 buses will cause a large number of students to wait at the bus stop for half an hour -in many cases longer as it is unlikely that all will be able to fit on the one bus. Highlighted concerns that the extra peak time 428 buses were put in place to prevent a similar problem, and the proposals will cause it to return. Also highlighted that the existing 428 service is often overcrowded already, leaving students waiting on narrow streets. Expressed concern that removal of the extra school time buses would exacerbate this and increase safety concerns for students and other users of the narrow pavements and the roads alongside, and requested a reconsideration of the removal of these school time services. Stated that 96 buses are also heavily overcrowded now, and often arrive together, creating issues for shoppers and those with pushchairs and/or wheelchairs as well as students. Raised that the new town

69 centre layout in Dartford can be unpleasant to navigate for people coming from Home Gardens, with the route for many people involving walking down alleyways and across car parks