Consultation on Route K1 – Introduction of Fixed Bus Stops in Sunray and Egmont Estates, Tolworth

Consultation on Route K1 – Introduction of fixed bus stops in Sunray and Egmont Estates, Tolworth

Consultation Report September 2016

Consultation on Route K1 – Introduction of fixed bus stops in Sunray and Egmont Estates, Tolworth

Consultation Report

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. The consultation ...... 3 3. Responses from members of the public ...... 5 4. Responses from stakeholders ...... 18 Appendix A – Main consultation materials ...... 22 Appendix B – Summary of all comments received from members of the public ...... 30 Appendix C – Comments about the quality of the consultation from members of the public ...... 33 Appendix D – List of main stakeholders consulted ...... 34

1. Introduction

We consulted stakeholders and the public about proposed changes to bus route K1. The consultation took place for a period of just over six weeks from Friday 5 February to Sunday 20 March 2016.

This report explains the background to the proposal and consultation, and summarises the responses.

Bus route K1 runs between Kingston, Cromwell Road bus station and New Malden station. It runs every 12 minutes Monday to Saturday daytimes and every 20 minutes during the evening and all day on Sundays. Most of route K1 has fixed bus stops, but there is a Hail and Ride facility on three sections of its route between Tolworth and New Malden. Hail and Ride means that buses are permitted to stop at any safe point requested by a customer, so there are no fixed bus stops.

One of the Hail and Ride sections is in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, along parts of Barnsbury Lane, Warren Drive South and Knollmead, and along the full length of Southwood Drive. We proposed to improve bus accessibility, reliability and information on these roads by introducing fixed bus stops.

We proposed to introduce nine fixed bus stops (three with bus shelters) in the Sunray and Egmont Estates. There would be two each in Barnsbury Lane, Warren Drive South and Knollmead, and three in Southwood Drive. Minor associated changes to the footways, roads and grass verges would be needed, and some new or amended restrictions on parking and loading would also be needed. The Hail and Ride facility would then no longer apply in these roads. A map showing the proposed bus stop locations, and a link to the consultation web page, which includes the details and the associated changes and restrictions needed for each stop, are shown in Appendix A.

Fixed bus stops would provide:

 Improved accessibility – Route K1 drivers sometimes find it difficult to find suitable places to stop at all the locations requested due to parked vehicles and grass verges. Fixed stops would ensure that there is enough room available for drivers to deploy the wheelchair ramp safely, and space for wheelchair users to wait before boarding. They would also allow passengers to board the bus without having to step up or down.

 A more reliable journey – The number of customers using the K1 has increased in recent years – to accommodate this we increased the frequency in 2014, from every 15 minutes to every 12 minutes during the day on Mondays to Saturdays. Surveys have shown that route K1 buses often stop several times in a short distance in this area. This means the service is prone to disruption. Fixed stops would improve punctuality and allow us to more accurately predict the journey time.

 Clear information – Hail and Ride can be confusing for visually impaired customers, those with learning difficulties, and anyone unfamiliar with the area, as there is no clear indication of where buses will and will not stop. There is also nowhere to provide timetable information. Fixed bus stops would clearly indicate that a bus service is available. They would have information frames containing timetables, and information about diversions when needed. They would also allow us to provide more precise real time information to customers with mobile devices, ‘next stop’ information on the buses, and more detailed information for journey planning.

 Reduced traffic congestion – As it is difficult for buses operating Hail and Ride to access the kerb at some locations they can block other vehicles while they stop for customers. Fixed bus stops would, with the associated new or amended restrictions on parking and loading, reduce this problem.

Typically, we place bus stops approximately 400 metres apart, although there may be a shorter distance between stops in some areas. Bus journey times are affected by the number of stops on a route, so we need to strike a balance between convenience and journey time.

We need to make sure that there is enough room for buses to stop safely at a fixed stop. We visited the area a number of times to assess (in discussion with the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, the Highway Authority) suitable, safe sites for the proposed bus stops. The locations were carefully planned to take into account road safety (including sight lines), the road layout, parking and lamp posts.

The average spacing between each stop in this area would be approximately 320 metres. We proposed fixed bus stops at or near some of the locations where buses currently stop when requested. However, we had to balance customer preference with stop frequency and safety factors. We accepted that some customers would have a longer walk to and from the bus but we felt that, overall, accessibility and reliability would be improved.

We tried to minimise the loss of parking, for example by using buildouts into the road at three of the stops and designing some bus stop cage markings at a shorter than standard length. However, we would have to take over space currently used for parking at some sites to ensure buses would be able to fully access the stop and pull away safely.

The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames would need to carry out a separate statutory consultation for the Traffic Management Orders required for the proposed new restrictions on parking and loading at Sites 1, 4 and 5 and the proposed new parking restriction opposite Site 9. This would take place if a decision is made to proceed with the proposed new bus stops. This would not be required for the sites where a bus stop cage marking was proposed (including where this marking would overlay an existing parking restriction), as these markings do not require Traffic Management Orders.

2. The consultation

The consultation was designed to enable us to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to bus route K1.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:  We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned  We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in the consultation  We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation

2.1 Consultation objectives The objectives of the consultation were:  To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposed changes and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support for or opposition to the proposed changes  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 Who we consulted We consulted local residents and current users of bus route K1. We also consulted stakeholders including the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, Metropolitan Police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, London Assembly Members, Borough ward councillors, the local school and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix D and responses from stakeholders are shown in Section 4.

2.3 Consultation materials, distribution and publicity We published a dedicated consultation web page (tfl.gov.uk/buses/k1) to explain the background to the proposal and invite responses.

To raise awareness of the consultation we sent an email (or a letter with an overview map) to stakeholders, and an email to approximately 4,300 registered Oyster card holders who use route K1.

We delivered a letter with an overview map to approximately 1,900 local households and businesses in the Sunray and Egmont Estates and part of the surrounding residential area. We re-delivered this to most properties after we found that the original letter had been printed incorrectly.

We placed posters on lamp posts in the Sunray and Egmont Estates near to the sites of the proposed bus stops, and at some key bus stops elsewhere on route K1.

We also issued a press release and used Twitter to promote the consultation.

Sunray and Egmont Residents’ Association (SERA) contacted over 250 of its members about the proposal and mentioned it on the local area Facebook page.

A petition against our proposal, based on the information we provided, was created and promoted locally. 3

Copies of the main consultation materials, including a map of the letter distribution extent, are shown in Appendix A.

We invited people to respond to the consultation by a variety of methods:  Completing an online survey form  Emailing [email protected]  Writing to our Freepost address

We also provided a contact telephone number for people to call for details of the consultation, and offered to provide information in large print, audio or another language.

The online survey form contained six questions relating to the proposed changes (listed below), six questions relating to the respondents and one question relating to the quality of the consultation.

The following four closed questions asked respondents specifically about the proposed changes:  Do you currently use route K1?  How often do you use route K1?  Do you live on one of the roads served by route K1 in this area?  Do you support our proposal to introduce fixed bus stops in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, replacing the existing Hail and Ride facility?

The following two open questions asked respondents specifically about the proposed changes:  Do you have any comments about individual proposed bus stop sites? If so, please indicate the site number(s) you are commenting on before adding your comments.  Do you have any comments about our proposal as a whole?

The questions relating to the respondents asked respondents their name, their email address, their postcode, the name of any organisation, business or campaign group they were responding on behalf of, how they heard about the consultation, and whether their day-to-day activities are limited because of a health problem or disability (including problems related to old age).

The question relating to the quality of the consultation asked:  Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.?)

2.4 Meetings Prior to the consultation we met with officers from Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames to confirm bus stop site locations, and discussed the consultation with them. We also met with Borough officers, local Borough ward councillors and a representative of SERA.

3. Responses from members of the public

We received 132 responses from members of the public.

3.1 Response types Of the 132 responses, there were 102 (77%) using our online survey form, 18 (14%) by email, 11 (8%) by letter and one (less than 1%) by telephone.

Once any duplicate responses had been removed, there were 128 respondents. Duplicates can occur, for example, when the same person responds by email and online or when the same person responds twice online. When duplicates were identified, we combined the two responses. We processed 4 duplicates in this consultation

Response type (before duplicates removed) 120

100

0 Online survey Email Letter Telephone form Responses 102 18 11 1 % 77% 14% 8% 1%

Of the 128 respondents, 27 did not directly answer the questions we asked in the online survey form, as they responded only by email or letter. They are included in the totals for ‘Not Answered’ in the analysis below, even if the answer could be implied from other information provided.

3.2 Petition We received a petition which had been conducted by two local residents. The petition reported that views had been obtained from 524 residents, all living in roads within the Sunray and Egmont Estates. A summary report was sent to us with the forms containing signatures.

The petition summary report showed that, of the 524 residents, 498 (more than 94%) signed against the proposed bus stops and shelters, 2 (less than 1%) signed against shelters only, 7 (less than 2%) wanted the proposed bus stops and shelters, and 17 (3%) were neutral / unaffected by the proposal.

Sunray and Egmont Residents’ Association (SERA) expressed support for this petition in their response to the consultation.

The petition responses have not been included in the analysis below.

[When we checked the calculations the percentage signing against bus stops and shelters was more than 95% (not more than 94%). On the forms containing signatures only one entry was noted as against shelters only (not two as shown in the summary report).]

3.3 Questions about the respondents We asked respondents how they heard about the consultation. Of the 128 respondents, 47 (37%) received one of our letters while 33 (26%) received an email from us. The remaining 15 respondents (12%) who answered the question found out through other means and 33 (26%) did not answer the question.

How did you hear about this consultation? 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Received Received a Saw it on Other Read about Social Not an email letter from the TfL (please in the press media Answered from TfL TfL website specify) Responses 33 47 3 5 2 5 33 % 26% 37% 2% 4% 2% 4% 26%

We also asked respondents about health problems and disabilities. Of the 128 respondents, 72 (56%) reported their day-to-day activities not being limited, with 12 (10%) reporting at least some limitation on their day-to-day activities and 44 (34%) not providing this information or not answering the question.

Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (please include problems related to old age) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes, limited a Yes, limited a Prefer not to Not Not No lot little say applicable Answered Responses 210725435 % 2% 8% 56% 4% 3% 27%

3.4 Questions about the proposed changes To help us to understand the views of the public on our proposed changes we asked four closed questions and two open questions.

3.4.1 Use of route K1 We asked whether respondents currently use route K1. Of the 128 respondents, 96 (75%) stated that they currently use route K1, with 4 (3%) stating that they do not, and 28 (22%) not answering the question.

Do you currently use route K1? 120

100

0 Yes No Not Answered Responses 96428 % 75% 3% 22%

We asked how often respondents use route K1. Of the 128 respondents, 81 (63%) stated that they use route K1 once a week or more. Only three (2%) stated that they never use route K1 and 28 (22%) did not answer the question.

How often do you use route K1? 40

0 2-3 times a Once a 1-2 times a Not Daily Rarely Never week week month Answered Responses 30 37 14 12 4 3 28 % 23% 29% 11% 9% 3% 2% 22%

3.4.2 Residential location We asked respondents whether they live on one of the roads served by route K1 in this area. Of the 128 respondents, 42 (33%) stated that they live on one of these roads, with a fairly even spread across the four roads. A further 22 respondents (17%) stated that they live elsewhere in the Sunray or Egmont Estates (i.e. close to but not directly on route K1), 36 (28%) stated that they live elsewhere, and 28 (22%) did not answer the question.

Do you live on one of the roads served by route K1 in this area? 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Yes, Barnsbury Yes, Yes, Lane Warren Knollmead No, but live (between Drive (between Yes, in the Vincent South Warren No, live Prefer not Not Southwood Sunray or Avenue (between Drive elsewhere to say Answered Drive Egmont and Barnsbury South and Estates Warren Lane and Southwood Drive Knollmead) Drive) South) Responses 51313112236028 % 4% 10% 10% 9% 17% 28% 0% 22%

3.4.3 Support for proposed changes We asked respondents whether they supported our proposed changes to bus route K1.

We have analysed the responses to this question by residential location, by postcode and by health problems and disability.

Of the 128 respondents taken as a whole, 58 (45%) stated that they supported or partially supported the proposal, and 37 (29%) stated that they did not support it, with the remainder having no opinion or not answering the question.

Do you support our proposal to introduce fixed bus stops in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, replacing the existing Hail and Ride facility? (all respondents) 60

0 Not Yes Partially No Not sure No opinion Answered Responses 508370429 % 39% 6% 29% 0% 3% 23%

Of the 29 respondents not directly answering the question, in their written responses 4 expressed clear support for the proposal, 3 expressed partial support, 10 expressed clear opposition, and 12 were not clear about their overall support.

Of the 42 respondents stating that they live on one of the roads served by route K1 in this area, 15 (just over one third) stated that they supported or partially supported the proposal, and 27 (just under two thirds) stated that they did not support it.

Do you support our proposal to introduce fixed bus stops in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, replacing the existing Hail and Ride facility? (respondents who live on one of the roads served by route K1 in this area) 30

0 Not Yes Partially No Not sure No opinion Answered Responses 8727000

Of the 22 respondents stating that they live in the Sunray or Egmont Estates but not on one of the roads served by route K1, 13 (over half) stated that they supported the proposal, 8 (just over one third) stated that they did not support it, with 1 expressing no opinion.

Do you support our proposal to introduce fixed bus stops in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, replacing the existing Hail and Ride facility? (respondents who live in the Sunray or Egmont Estates but not on one of the roads served by route K1) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Not Yes Partially No Not sure No opinion Answered Responses 1308010

Of the 36 respondents stating that they live elsewhere, 30 (nearly all) stated that they supported or partially supported the proposal, 2 stated that they did not support it, with 4 expressing no opinion or not answering the question.

Do you support our proposal to introduce fixed bus stops in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, replacing the existing Hail and Ride facility? (respondents who live elsewhere) 35

0 Not Yes Partially No Not sure No opinion Answered Responses 2912031

We were not able to analyse support for the scheme by residential location for the 28 respondents who did not answer the question “Do you live on one of the roads served by route K1 in this area?”, but 15 of these respondents provided a postcode so are included in the analysis by postcode below.

We also analysed support for the proposal based on respondents’ postcodes. These were not cross-checked against respondents’ answers to the question “Do you live on one of the roads served by route K1 in this area?” except for 16 of the 29 respondents who did not give a postcode, for whom we used their answers to that question instead.

When compared with respondents’ postcodes, support for the proposal was strongest outside the Sunray and Egmont Estates. There was less support for the proposal inside the Estates.

Looking at health problems and disabilities, of the 12 respondents reporting at least some limitation on their day-to-day activities, 7 (just over half) stated that they supported or partially supported the proposal and 5 (just less than half) stated that they did not support it.

Do you support our proposal to introduce fixed bus stops in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, replacing the existing Hail and Ride facility? (respondents whose day-to-day activities are limited a little or a lot) 7

0 Not Yes Partially No Not sure No opinion Answered Responses 615000

Of the 72 respondents reporting no limitation on their day-to-day activities, 44 (nearly two-thirds) stated that they supported or partially supported the proposal and 26 (over a third) stated that they did not support it, with 2 expressing no opinion.

We have excluded from this analysis those respondents who did not provide information about health problems or disability or who did not directly answer the question. This includes the 27 respondents who responded only by email or letter.

3.4.4 Comments Of the open questions, the first asked “Do you have any comments about individual proposed bus stop sites? If so, please indicate the site number(s) you are commenting on before adding your comments.”, and the second asked “Do you have any comments about our proposal as a whole?”

We took the comments made in answer to these questions and incorporated the comments received in the 30 letters, emails and telephone calls which did not directly answer these questions. We also incorporated some comments provided in answer to the question “Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)” as they were more relevant to the other two questions. We then analysed the responses received, analysing both questions at the same time as there was much overlap in the responses provided to both.

Of the 128 respondents, 106 made at least one comment. We categorised the comments into 72 themes, most of which we further organised into comments of a general nature about the proposal and comments relating to specific sites as numbered on the maps.

We allocated comments relating to specific areas between the proposed bus stop sites to the site-specific themes for bus stops on both sides. We allocated general comments relating to bus shelters to each of the site-specific themes for Sites, 3, 4 and 9 as they were the only sites where a bus shelter was proposed. In many cases an objection to the location of a specific bus stop site was accompanied by a suggestion for an alternative location, both of which we logged in the appropriate themes. There is therefore some duplication of comments within and between the tables below.

The full list of comment themes with totals can be seen in Appendix B – Summary of all comments received from members of the public.

Table 3a shows the most frequently mentioned positive comments

Table 3a No. of times Positive Comments raised General Supports reasons given in proposal 23 General comment in favour of proposal 18 Will improve safety 4 Compliments choice of sites 4 Will improve interaction between bus drivers and customers 3 Site-specific Site 4 7 Site 3 6 Site 9 3

Table 3b shows the neutral comments

Table 3b No. of times Neutral Comments raised General No objection to proposal / conditional support / reluctant support / not 24 affected

Table 3c shows the most frequently mentioned comments against the proposal.

Table 3c No. of times Comments Against Proposal raised General Existing situation works well / does not need changing / proposals will 39 not help Will worsen parking situation 29 General comment against proposal 22 Would adversely affect older / disabled people 21 Objects to cost / waste / unnecessary cost 11 Would adversely affect local environment / access / be disruptive / 10 reduce housing value Would adversely affect local bus passengers in general 9 Would adversely affect parents 7 Proposed sites don't match where people currently get on / off 4 Would adversely affect traffic flow 3 Site-specific Site 4 36 Site 3 26 Site 6 16 Site 5 15 Site 9 12 Site 1 8 Site 2 7 Site 7 5 Site 8 5 Opposite Site 9 3

Table 3d shows the most frequently mentioned suggestions.

Table 3d No. of times Suggestions About Proposal raised General Suggestion about parking 4 Suggestion about alternative locations for fixed bus stops 3 Suggestion about bus stops / shelters 3 Site-specific Site 4 19 Site 3 16 Site 6 9 Site 5 8 Site 1 5 Site 2 4 Site 9 4 Opposite Site 9 3

4. Responses from stakeholders

We received five responses from stakeholders.

The relevant parts of the response for each stakeholder are shown below.

London TravelWatch Question 4 Do you support our proposal to introduce fixed bus stops in the Sunray and Egmont Estates, replacing the existing Hail and Ride facility?: Yes

Question 5 Do you have any comments about individual proposed bus stop sites? If so, please indicate the site number(s) you are commenting on before adding your comments.: Not Answered

Question 6 Do you have any comments about our proposal as a whole?: London TravelWatch supports the conversion of Hail and Ride services to ordinary services with fixed stops for all the reasons described in this consultation. Particularly to allow those with a mobility and visual impairment to access the bus.

Question 12 Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.): Very good insofar as this sets down the basis for the conversion of hail and Ride.

Metropolitan Police, Traffic Management Unit The Police have no objections provided that the stops do not adversely effect intervisibility at junctions. Thank you for consulting us in this matter.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (Highways & Transport) Further to your consultation, RBK fully understand the reasons behind these changes, and it is our duty as a council as well to make sure that all services are complying with the Disability Act, therefore we have no highway objection on the concept of the proposal, however, we need to discuss the impact that this will have on our residents and how we can address and accommodate their concerns.

I hope the above is of help. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, Alexandra Ward Councillors (Cllr Ian George, Cllr Chris Hayes, Cllr Richard Hudson) Firstly, we were disappointed that no meeting took place with us prior to the publication of this leaflet to our residents; with such changes we would usually like to have a meeting with you and our officers so we can discuss the proposal in full and consider the objectives of this proposal and our residents’ concerns.

However, we are pleased a meeting took place on 16th March with your representatives. At this meeting we discussed your reasons behind these changes and our residents’ concerns. We were pleased that the Chairman of the Sunray and Egmont Residents Association (SERA) was also able to attend this meeting.

It is understandable that TFL wishes to be DDA compliant; however your consultation leaflet did not explicitly set this out as one of the main reasons for these changes. This could have been better communicated to residents.

As you are aware our residents are not in full in support to these changes, as demonstrated by the petition of 500 signatures. We request that the petition along with each and every comment is carefully reviewed, recorded and considered.

We as ward members need to consider this scheme against our residents concerns, and we are therefore opposed to the current proposals.

We would like to have more meetings with you in order to look at how to balance the need that you identify for this scheme, with our residents concerns; most notably the impact on elderly residents of a loss of the hail and ride scheme, the impact this will have on parking, which is already at a premium on this estate, and concerns around loitering and anti-social behaviour that could come with fixed stops.

The parking problem in particular on some parts of the estate is already blocking the K1 bus route from a smooth route through some roads, and we are concerned that fixed bus stops could exacerbate this problem.

We would like to request further meetings with you and our residents to look at these proposals again to reduce the impact on our residents.

Secondly, as we understand from our meeting, the same changes will be carried out for the roads served by the K1 bus route in Malden and Coombe Neighbourhood. Therefore, we strongly request the postponement of the implementation of fixed bus stops with no shelters on the Sunray estate (in Surbiton Neighbourhood), until the resolutions from Maldens and Coombe Neighbourhood have been achieved. That will give continuation of these changes in both Neighbourhoods and remove confusion to residents.

In view of the feedback from local residents, and in the absence of a further meeting, can you please register our objection to the current proposals.

Sunray and Egmont Residents’ Association (SERA) As discussed today, I have received feedback from residents, and I attach this, together with a covering letter dated 3rd March with SERA's formal response to TfL proposals. I also attach a JPEG of the letter with my signature, should this be a legal requirement.

I would also refer to the petition arranged by residents in Warren Drive South, independently from SERA, but with our support, with 524 signatures, with 94% against TfL proposals, which has been sent to you direct today.

I really do trust that TfL will heed the wishes of this community, and not change from the present very successful and appreciated 'Hail and Ride' Service.

Following receipt of your consultation letter dated 5th February, as previously discussed with you, we sent an email to over 250 of our members, (copied to our 3 ward councillors, and TfL Consultations), asking residents to pass their comments to you, with a copy to me so that I was aware of public opinion. During our discussion, you did request a response from our association, which I am happy to provide following comments from the residents.

I have received 25 detailed responses from residents, which are copied verbatim (with residents’ names removed) and attached to this email. Comment no. 23 ran to 7 pages, and as I am aware that this has been sent to you direct, only a paragraph is included in the attachment.

Overall, I thought that the replies were generally well reasoned, and I summarise our association’s formal response to your proposals for consultation.

There is a strong preference for retaining ‘Hail and Ride’ which appears to work well for those who use it regularly.

There is generally resistance (with some exceptions) to fixed bus stops, particularly from those residents who may be elderly, or have difficulty walking, particularly uphill. For some years, there has been a good working arrangement between bus drivers and travelling community and points for ‘Hail and Ride’ have been established over this time.

There is also great concern from most residents about the potential loss of car parking spaces. This road network was designed over 80 years ago, and parking has become a serious problem in recent years. There is very strong opposition to any loss of parking, in the roads affected.

There is very strong resistance to the introduction of bus shelters on these local roads on the estate.

The main concerns being the likelihood of youths gathering at night, with the risk of anti- social behaviour, noise and litter/rubbish dumping. There is little surveillance of these roads in the evening and night.

From my professional and local experience unmanaged facilities can be a source of problems for the community, particularly in areas which have little surveillance, particularly in the dark hours.

None of the replies referred to any problems with vehicles being held up behind buses when stopped.

Of course, car users did have an opportunity to comment on email.

None of the replies referred to any of the potential benefits set out in your consultation pack.

We have a resident who has a wheelchair and uses the K1 regularly, and he has given detailed reasons why the ‘Hail and Ride’ arrangements should remain. Comment no 23 (7 pages)

No one has reported that the ‘Hail and Ride’ arrangement has been prone to disruption or has concerns about punctuality, nor have they comments on lack of timetable or when buses are due. With buses every 12, minutes the maximum wait is, on average, only 6 minutes.

From the replies received from 25 of our residents, there is no desire to change from the current ‘Hail and Ride’ arrangements, there is strong opposition to bus shelters, and no real desire for fixed bus stops.

On behalf of our community, we support its wishes and would ask TfL to retain the existing ‘Hail and Ride’ facility without fixed bus stops for the K1 bus route, which is well used and supported by the public.

We are aware, however, that there are areas where the larger buses (previously hoppers) have difficulty negotiating some of the corners, e.g. Knollmead/Southwood Drive, and this needs to be addressed, hence our intention to carry out an estate wide- public realm review this spring. I am confident, that with some local adjustments (not yellow lines), parking and bus travel can continue for years to come, to the benefit of all.

I am not sure where the funding for bus shelters was coming from, but it might be this could go towards providing some additional parking, particularly the green in Warren Drive South, a problem for many years.

I am copying this letter and its enclosures to the highways department of Kingston Council, with whom I assume you have been in discussion on your proposals for the K1.

I note that prior to the completion of a review on the consultation feedback, TfL are unable to provide me with feedback on the number of replies received from the public.

I have received today, a petition arranged and collected by a resident in Warren Drive South, objecting to TfL proposals, together with a covering detailed letter and analysis of the results , which has been sent to you direct today. Of the 524 signatures obtained, 94% object to TfL proposals

[The petition referred to in this response actually had 500 signatures with a further 24 people expressing a view. When we checked the calculations the percentage signing against bus stops and shelters was more than 95% of the total of 524 residents (not 94%).]

Appendix A – Main consultation materials

Consultation web page The consultation web page is at tfl.gov.uk/buses/k1

Email to stakeholders

Email to registered Oyster card holders

Letter to local households and businesses (with accompanying map) (Version used for re-delivery Friday 19 February 2016)

Letter distribution extent

Poster

Appendix B – Summary of all comments received from members of the public

Full list of themes with totals of comments in response to:

“Do you have any comments about individual proposed bus stop sites? If so, please indicate the site number(s) you are commenting on before adding your comments.”

“Do you have any comments about our proposal as a whole?”

No. of times Positive Comments raised General Supports reasons given in proposal 23 General comment in favour of proposal 18 Will improve safety 4 Compliments choice of sites 4 Will improve interaction between bus drivers and customers 3 Should have been done a long time ago 2 Will increase bus use 1 Customers are not all older or disabled 1 Would deter parking for Malden Manor rail station 1 Site-specific Site 4 7 Site 3 6 Site 9 3 Site 1 2 Site 2 2 Site 5 2 Site 6 2 Site 7 1 Site 8 1

No. of times Neutral Comments raised General No objection to proposal / conditional support / reluctant support / not 24 affected No. of times Comments Against Proposal raised General Existing situation works well / does not need changing / proposals will 39 not help Will worsen parking situation 29 General comment against proposal 22 Would adversely affect older / disabled people 21 Objects to cost / waste / unnecessary cost 11 Would adversely affect local environment / access / be disruptive / 10 reduce housing value Would adversely affect local bus passengers in general 9 Would adversely affect parents 7 Proposed sites don't match where people currently get on / off 4 Would adversely affect traffic flow 3 Customers may get caught between stops 2 Inconsistent with other areas 1 Would adversely affect personal safety 1 Concern about consistency of shelter provision 1 Site-specific Site 4 36 Site 3 26 Site 6 16 Site 5 15 Site 9 12 Site 1 8 Site 2 7 Site 7 5 Site 8 5 Opposite Site 9 3

No. of times Suggestions About Proposal raised General Suggestion about parking 4 Suggestion about alternative locations for fixed bus stops 3 Suggestion about bus stops / shelters 3 Suggestion about alternative facilities for customers 1 Site-specific Site 4 19 Site 3 16 Site 6 9 Site 5 8 Site 1 5 Site 2 4 Site 9 4 Opposite Site 9 3 Site 7 2 Site 8 1 No. of times Comments not Directly Related to Proposal raised General Concern about route K1 17 Compliment about route K1 12 Suggestion about route K1 11 Concern about something else 4 Comment about another section of route K1 4 Suggestion about buses in general 3 Suggestion about something else 1 Compliment about buses in general 1 Concern about buses in general 1 No. of times Factual Comments raised General Describes how uses route K1 or other mode of transport 21 Describes where lives 17 Describes health / mobility / age 6 Representing a person or group of people 4 Reference to a previous proposal 1

Appendix C – Comments about the quality of the consultation from members of the public

We asked “Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)”.

We took the comments made in answer to this question and incorporated the comments received in the 30 letters, emails and telephone calls which did not directly answer this question.We also incorporated some comments provided in answer to the questions ”Do you have any comments about individual proposed bus stop sites? If so, please indicate the site number(s) you are commenting on before adding your comments.” and “Do you have any comments about our proposal as a whole?” as they were more relevant to the other question. We then analysed the responses received.

Of the 128 public respondents, 61 made at least one comment relating to the quality of the consultation. The comments have been categorised into 13 themes.

No. of times Positive Comments raised Consultation materials are accurate / clear / detailed / comprehensive / 26 informative / well organised / transparent / helpful / concise General positive comment 22 Compliment about maps 7 Compliment about online survey 1 No. of times Neutral Comments raised Consultation materials are satisfactory / fine / sufficient 10 Comment about the difficulty of consultation 1 No. of times Negative Comments raised Concern / request about validity / timing of consultation 9 Lacked desired information 3 Concern about consultation method 3 Concern about maps 2 General negative comment 1 Concern about online survey 1 Concern about lack of receipt of information 1

Appendix D – List of main stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members Andrew Boff AM Greater London Authority Caroline Pidgeon AM Greater London Authority Darren Johnson AM Greater London Authority Fiona Twycross AM Greater London Authority Gareth Bacon AM Greater London Authority Jenny Jones AM Greater London Authority Joanne McCartney AM Greater London Authority Murad Qureshi AM Greater London Authority Nicky Gavron AM Greater London Authority Richard Tracey AM Greater London Authority Stephen Knight AM Greater London Authority Tom Copley AM Greater London Authority Tony Arbour AM Greater London Authority Valerie Shawcross AM Greater London Authority James Berry MP Kingston and Surbiton Seema Malhotra MP Feltham and Heston Siobhain McDonagh MP Mitcham and Morden Stephen Hammond MP Wimbledon, Raynes Park, Morden and Motspur Park Dr Tania Mathias MP Twickenham Zac Goldsmith MP Richmond Park and North Kingston Cllr Andy Johnson-Creek Portfolio Holder: Resident Participation, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Cllr Chris Hayes Ward Councillor, Alexandra Ward, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Cllr Ian George Ward Councillor, Alexandra Ward, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Cllr Malcolm Self Chair of Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Cllr Richard Hudson Ward Councillor, Alexandra Ward, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Cllr Sushila Abraham Vice-Chair of Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Cllr Terry Paton Portfolio Holder: Resident Services, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Local Authorities Greater London Authority London Borough of Sutton Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Police, Fire & Health Authorities London Ambulance Service London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority London Fire Brigade Metropolitan Police NHS Central London

Transport Groups & Unions AA Motoring Trust Association of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Operators British Motorcyclists Federation Campaign for Better Transport Canal & River Trust London CTC, the national cycling charity Department for Transport Freight Transport Association GMB Union Greater London Authority Strategy Access Panel Green Flag Group Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Living Streets London Cycling Campaign (Kingston) Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association RMT Union Road Haulage Association Sustrans Unions Together Unite

Local Interest Groups 6th Tolworth Scout Group Chessington District Residents Association Community Learning Disability Team, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Kingston Area Travellers' Association Kingston Centre for Independent Living Kingston Mencap Kingston Town Centre Management Limited Knollmead Primary School Raynes Park & West Barnes Residents' Association Richmond and Kingston Accessible Transport Sunray and Egmont Residents' Association (SERA) Sunray Community Centre Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector The Sunray Club

Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Age UK London Alzheimer's Society Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance BT BT Openreach Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee EDF Energy Greater London Forum for the Elderly Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Institution of Civil Engineers Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People Joint Mobility Unit London Councils London Older People's Strategy Group MIND National Children's Bureau National Grid RNIB Royal Mail Royal Mail Parcelforce Royal Parks Sense Sixty Plus Stroke Association Thames Water The British Dyslexia Association