Consultation on possible changes to bus route 25
Consultation Report March 2016
1
2
Consultation on possible bus changes to bus route 25 Consultation Report
3
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 2 3. Responses from members of the public ...... 4 4. Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ...... 8
Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter/map/CRM email ...... 10 Appendix B – Letter distribution area ...... 14 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 15
1
1. Introduction
We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about a proposal to alter route 25 in the Bow area. The consultation took place between 2 September and 30 October 2015.
Route 25 operates between Ilford and Oxford Circus, with an additional leg between Ilford and City Thameslink Station on Monday to Saturday daytimes. There are a number of Road Modernisation Plan schemes underway or planned along the route (including Aldgate gyratory, Cycle Superhighway 2 upgrade and the Bow Vision proposals), and we want to ensure route 25 continues to operate reliably for passengers.
Route 25 is currently on diversion via Bow Flyover. We proposed to make this routeing permanent. This change would shorten journey times compared to the previous routeing around Bow Roundabout and help the route operate more reliably.
This proposal would mean that route 25 no longer serves two bus stops towards Ilford (Bus stop M, Bow Flyover and Bus stop W, Marshgate Lane) and one stop towards the City (Bus stop P, Bow Flyover). Routes 276, 425 and D8 would continue to serve these bus stops either side of Bow Roundabout.
In addition to the proposed changes at Bow, we are also planning to introduce four additional Monday to Friday PM peak time eastbound journeys on route 25 to help alleviate crowding at the busiest points along the route. This would mean that there would be a bus around every 3 minutes on the core section of the route towards Ilford during the busiest two hours of the evening peak.
The consultation was designed to enable TfL to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to route 25.
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 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 proposals and allow them to respond To understand the level of support or opposition for the change 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 The consultation intended to seek the views of local residents, people who use the bus routes involved and those who might potentially use the service. We also consulted
2
stakeholders including the affected Councils, Police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament and Assembly Members. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix C and a summary of their responses is given in Section 4.
2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online. The dedicated web page explained the background to the proposal. We invited people to respond by answering a number of questions and leaving comments. We raised awareness of the consultation by sending an email to key stakeholders, and to 12,600 registered Oyster Card holders who have used route 25. We also wrote to approximately 1,800 local residents and businesses. Copies of the consultation materials are shown in Appendix A.
People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond via our freepost address (FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS), by emailing [email protected] or by accessing the online consultation where they could let us know their views.
During the consultation period, the bus stops at Bow Roundabout were changed as a result of Cycle Superhighway 2 upgrade works: bus stop M was permanently removed, and bus stops E and G were amalgamated into a single stop. We sent emails to stakeholders and those who had already responded to the consultation explaining these changes. As a result of these changes, the consultation end date was also extended from 16 October to 30 October.
3
3. Responses from members of the public We received 1297 responses from members of the public. There were 693 responses via our website, 37 received via email or letter, and 567 hard copy questionnaire responses.
We asked members of the public how they found out about the consultation.
Q5. How did you hear about this consultation?
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 TfL Social No Email Letter Press Other Total website media answer No of replies 252 23 50 171 146 388 267 1297 % of total 19 2 4 13 11 30 21 100
3.1 Petitions We also received a petition via Lyn Brown MP, signed by 638 local residents, requesting that route 25 resumes serving the bus stops at Marshgate Lane and Bow Flyover.
4
3.2 Public consultation results To help us understand more about those who replied and their thoughts on the route and proposal, we asked a number of questions;
We asked respondents whether they currently use route 25.
Q6. Do you currently use route 25? 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 Not Yes No Total answered No. of replies 1146 90 61 1297 % of total 88 7 5 100
We asked respondents for their views on our overall proposal for route 25. Q7. Are you in favour of our proposals for route 25?
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Not No No Yes No Partially Total sure opinion answer Number of replies 2341024157 5 121297 % of total 18791101100
5
The final question asked if respondents had any further views about the overall proposals for route 25. There were 615 additional comments (positive and negative) and suggestions in response to this question. The table below summarises the key comments/issues, and a separate document will respond to the main points raised by respondents.
Positive comments The change will reduce congestion at Bow Roundabout/shorten journey time 60 Route will be more reliable/efficient 36 Supportive of rerouteing/increased distance between stops 20 Removing the bus stop near McDonalds (M) will be safer for cyclists and there are other stops close by 19 This is a vital link for residents in the area 12 The re-routing via the flyover has worked very well 6 Use of flyover would stop buses bunching up and allow a steady service 2 More affordable than the tube 1 Useful for Queen Mary University of London 1 Negative comments It is inconvenient for route 25 not to serve the bus stops at Bow roundabout 145 Frequency is excessive - more buses unnecessary 136 There will be a longer gap/walk between bus stops/increased journey time 103 A large community will be cut off (including new developments) 97 Unhappy that route 25 won’t be serving the Marshgate Lane stop 85 The service is underused even in the rush hour 37 Object to the proposal generally 34 This proposal needs to be stopped 25 Revert back to previous 25 route with buses using stops W, M and P 23 Proposed change ill informed/unnecessary 19 While other routes serve the roundabout, they are not as frequent as route 25 15 Unhappy about loss of stop at McDonalds 13 The proposal will mean more bus changes/extra cost for passengers 13 Concern about impact on the environment 12 The proposal will make things difficult for those with mobility issues 10 Missing the roundabout will not make much difference to journey times 9 Driver changeovers at Bow Church DLR Station lengthy & inconvenient 8 Concern about increased air pollution 8 The current route is needed for access to Central London 7 Current service not sufficient/other routes infrequent 4 This will deter people from walking and cycling 3 The proposal is damaging to local transport links 2 Original route more convenient/safer to get home 2 Not enough traffic to justify change 1
6
Safety concerns Concerned about school children/People with mobility issues/elderly crossing the roundabout 44 Passengers may have a long walk to Marshgate Lane at night 29 Passengers may have to cross a busy roundabout 26 General safety concerns 21 Route 25 suggestions Route some 25 buses over the flyover and some around the roundabout 15 Improve driver changeover times at Bow DLR Stn or move it to Ilford 10 Remove stops along Whitechapel/Mile End Road/Aldgate instead 6 Move stop at Marshgate Lane after the flyover so that the bus 25 can still stop before Warton Road 6 Curtail the route so it doesn't go to Oxford Circus to save journey time 4 Introduce an express service mirroring the 25 route 4 Provide more dedicated infrastructure to speed up services not siphon bus lanes away 4 Stagger the buses to arrive in periodic intervals instead 4 Curtail the service at Stratford 3 Provide more buses at night 2 Split route in two serving Ilford to City Thameslink and Manor Park to Oxford Circus 2 Increase the frequency of all other buses that go serve Marshgate Lane 1 Introduce speed restriction for the bus on this section 1 Only reroute over the flyover at peak times 1 Other suggestions Money would be better spent elsewhere on the transport network 86 Suggestions about routeing/frequency of other TfL bus routes 52 Reroute 276 and D8 use the flyover instead of the roundabout 8 Introduce pedestrian crossing at the roundabout 2 Introduce congestion charge from the Bow roundabout to eliminate motor vehicles and HGV's 1 Remove Eastbound Bow Flyover stop next to roundabout as it is too close to the roundabout 1 General comments Too much priority given to cyclists 12 Concerned about traffic jams and delays at Bow roundabout especially during peak times 9 Construction of Crossrail and Cycle Superhighway causes congestion 5 Negative perception of TfL and motives 4 The route 25 service is slow 3 Bus sometimes terminates before reaching destination with no warning 2 Concerns about anti-social behaviour/littering 1 Difficult to reach Romford Road directly 1 Cyclists a danger to pedestrians between flyover and Marshgate Lane 1 Traffic queues on slip roads awful and cause delays 1
7
Comments about consultation process False dates given of when service at Marshgate Lane would resume 17 No data provided on usage/more information required 11 Lack of communication with affected residents 10 Conflicting information given 7
4. Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders
London TravelWatch Recognise the reason for diverting route 25 via the flyover on a temporary basis due to the delays caused by the CS2 Upgrade and Aldgate gyratory works. However, are uncomfortable with the fact that there is now a proposal to make this temporary arrangement permanent.
Passengers would either have to walk in the opposite direction to that which they are travelling or make a long walk across the very busy Bow roundabout if they want to get the 25 and don't want to interchange. Feel this is not very satisfactory.
Believe the proposal should be delayed until the CS2 Upgrade and Aldgate Gyratory are completed.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Margaret Cooper, Head of Transportation and Highways Objects to the temporary diversion of the 25 over the Bow Flyover being made permanent.
Feels that the route over the flyover seriously impacts on the ability of the service to cater for interchange with other services and hampers local access to the surrounding area.
Believes the proposal is inconsistent with TfL’s Bow Vision Work to improve pedestrian and cycle movement through the roundabout in all directions and cater for the longer term growth planned in that area. As the vision is considering the removal of the flyover in the lifetime of the next service contract, believes it would not be appropriate to introduce this change and then see it as a reason for not pursuing that Vision. Thinks that Bow Vision proposals themselves will improve journey times through the junction for buses.
Suggests that this proposal is reconsidered and no permanent changes introduced during the construction period of CS2, after which route operations on the original routeing can be reviewed and take account of progress towards the delivery of the Vision.
The London Borough of Newham were also consulted but did not provide a response.
8
Lyn Brown MP, West Ham Understands that the diversion of route 25 was initially implemented because of necessary road works which were causing delays to the route. Feels that the bus stops on the roundabout serve a large and expanding community living in Stratford and that making the diversion over the flyover permanent would adversely affect residents, particularly by the elderly and those with health and mobility difficulties.
Supports residents who feel that the impact of Cycle Superhighway works on local bus stops should not be a reason to permanently divert route 25 over Bow Flyover. The route is a busy one and curtailed access will be a great loss to many local residents.
Would like an assurance that the impact of the proposed change will be fully considered, alongside the views of local residents and passengers, before a decision is reached.
John Biggs AM, City & East London GLA Is supportive of this proposal.
Cllr Richard Crawford - Stratford & New Town ward Does not support the proposal. Agrees with local residents that route 25 should revert to serving the stops on Bow roundabout.
Young Mayor/young advisors Think this idea will be great because people don't have to wait at the bus stop at the bottom of the flyover they can go straight over it and towards Stratford
Bow Environmental Group Say that buses on route 25 aren’t full at present, and increasing the frequency would cause pollution and additional congestion. Feel their comments will be ignored.
Avery Hill Students Union Feel the proposed frequency increase is unnecessary. Would like to see more buses in their local area instead.
New Eltham Residents Group Feel the proposed frequency increase is unnecessary. Would like to see increased frequency on local buses in their area instead.
9
Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter/map/CRM email
10
11
12
Email to Oyster Card holders We sent an email to registered oyster card holders who have specified they use route 25. The email was issued to 12,600 people on 4 September 2015 and provided a link to our consultation page.
13
Appendix B – Letter distribution area
14
Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted
London TravelWatch
Caroline Pidgeon AM Darren Johnson AM Gareth Bacon AM Jenny Jones AM Murad Qureshi AM Nicky Gavron AM Richard Tracy AM Andrew Boff AM Victoria Borwick AM Tom Copley AM Stephen Knight AM Fiona Twycross AM Valerie Shawcross AM John Biggs AM Lyn Brown MP West Ham constituency Rushanara Ali MP Bethnal Green and Bow constituency Jim Fitzpatrick MP Poplar and Limehouse constituency Cllr Richard Crawford Stratford & New Town ward Cllr Charlene McLean Stratford & New Town ward Cllr Terry Ward Stratford & New Town ward Cllr Amina Ali Bow East ward Cllr Rachel Blake Bow East ward Cllr Marc Francis Bow East ward Cllr Khales Ahmed Bromley North ward Cllr Mohammed Mufti Miah Bromley North ward
Local Authorities London Borough of Newham London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Councils
Police & Health Authorities Metropolitan Police Newham Safer Transport Team Tower Hamlets Safer Transport Team London Ambulance Service NHS Newham CCG NHS Tower Hamlets CCG London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Transport Groups AA Alliance of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Operators British Motorcyclists Federation Freight Transport Association
15
Green Flag Group Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association Road Haulage Association
Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Age Concern London Age UK Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance BT Campaign for Better Transport Confederation of British Industry (CBI) CTC, The national cycling charity Disability Alliance Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee EDF Energy Greater London Forum for the Elderly Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Living Streets London Cycling Campaign London Older People's Strategy Group MIND National Children's Bureau National Grid RADAR London Access Forum RNIB Royal Mail London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Sense Sixty Plus Stroke Association Sustrans Thames Water The British Dyslexia Association
16