Consultation on Proposed Changes to Bus Routes 206 and 224

Consultation on proposed changes to bus routes 206 and 224

Consultation Report June 2016

Consultation on proposed changes to bus routes 206 and 224

Consultation Report

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 The consultation ...... 3 3 Responses from members of the public ...... 5 4 Responses from stakeholders ...... 14

Appendices Appendix A – Main consultation materials ...... 16 Appendix B – Summary of all public comments received ...... 23 Appendix C – Comments about the consultation from members of the public ...... 26 Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 27

1 Introduction

We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about proposed changes to bus routes 206 and 224. The consultation took place for a period of six weeks from Monday 8 February to Sunday 20 March 2016.

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

Bus route 206 operates between Kilburn Park station and Wembley Park, The Paddocks. Buses run every 12 minutes Monday to Saturday daytimes and every 20 minutes during the evening and all day on Sundays.

Bus route 224 operates between Wembley Stadium station and St Raphael’s. Buses run every 15 minutes Monday to Saturday daytimes and every 30 minutes during the evening and all day on Sundays.

Both routes serve Brentfield Road and Brent Park Tesco, and cross the A406 North Circular Road, but currently use different northbound and southbound routes due to the current local road layout.

The current road layout means that bus routes 206 and 224 have to take a longer route southbound than northbound and can become delayed by congestion as they need to use a section of the busy A406 North Circular Road. We have constructed an improved junction (we consulted on this scheme in 2015), part of which will allow southbound buses to cross the A406 North Circular Road from Drury Way directly into Brentfield Road.

We proposed changing the route these buses take in the Brent Park and St Raphael’s areas. This was intended to make the routes more direct, reduce journey times, improve reliability and simplify both routes.

The proposed changes (shown on maps in Appendix A) were:

Route 206

Northbound (towards Wembley Park, The Paddocks) there would be no change to the route or the bus stops served.

Southbound buses (towards Kilburn Park Station), from Brent Park Tesco, would run via Drury Way (newly serving bus stop C) directly across the A406 North Circular Road into Brentfield Road.

Southbound buses would no longer serve the southern section of Great Central Way (bus stop E) or the A406 North Circular Road (bus stop G).

Route 224

Northbound (towards St Raphael’s), from Brentfield Road, buses would cross the A406 North Circular Road into Drury Way as now, then turn left along Besant Way and Pitfield Way to St Raphael’s. They would then return along Pitfield Way and Besant Way to turn left into Drury Way, with the new last stop at Brent Park Tesco.

Southbound buses (towards Wembley Stadium station), after leaving the new first stop at Brent Park Tesco, would run via Drury Way (newly serving bus stop C), Besant Way and Pitfield Way to St Raphael’s. They would then return along Pitfield Way and Besant Way to turn right into Drury Way and run directly across the A406 North Circular Road into Brentfield Road.

Southbound buses would no longer serve the southern section of Great Central Way (bus stop E) or the A406 North Circular Road (bus stop G). Customers in the Drury Way area would use bus stop C in Drury Way or bus stop Q in Besant Way.

The first and last stop, and bus stand, would be at Brent Park Tesco instead of St Raphael’s. All bus stops in Besant Way and Pitfield Way would be served by buses both to Brent Park Tesco and to Wembley Stadium station.

2 The consultation

The consultation was designed to enable us to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to routes 206 and 224.

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 routes 206 and 224. We also consulted stakeholders including the London Borough of Brent, Metropolitan Police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, London Assembly Members, Borough ward councillors, local education establishments and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix D and their responses are shown in Section 4.

2.3 Consultation materials, distribution and publicity A dedicated consultation web page (tfl.gov.uk/buses/206-224) was created and published to explain the background to the proposal and invite responses.

To raise awareness of the consultation we sent an email or letter (with maps) to stakeholders, and an email to registered Oyster Card holders who use routes 206 and / or 224. We also used Twitter to promote the consultation.

We also sent a letter and maps to approximately 5,300 households and businesses in the area affected by the proposed changes. Printed information, based on the consultation web page and the letter, was distributed during public drop-in sessions.

We placed posters in bus stops (where space permitted), and handed posters to some local shops and publicly accessible buildings, in the area affected by the proposed changes.

Copies of the main consultation materials, including a map of the letter distribution extent, can be found 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  Completing a printed survey form (based on the online survey form) available at our drop-in sessions

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 and printed survey forms contained six questions related to the proposed changes, six questions relating to the respondents and one question relating to the quality of the consultation.

There were four closed questions (questions 1, 2, 4, and 5), and two open questions (questions 3 and 6) specific to the proposed changes.

The following four closed questions specifically asked respondents about the scheme:  Question 1: How often do you use route 206?  Question 2: Do you support our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?  Question 4: How often do you use route 224?  Question 5: Do you support our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?

The following open questions specifically asked respondents about the scheme:  Question 3: Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?  Question 6: Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?

2.4 Drop-in sessions We held three public drop-in sessions during the consultation period. These enabled us to display maps, hand out information, answer queries and encourage people to respond. Printed survey forms were available for those wishing to respond, and we also noted some of the comments made verbally.

The drop-in sessions took place as follows:  Brent Park Tesco on Saturday 20 February between 1320 and 1600  Brent Park Tesco on Monday 22 February between 1230 and 1430  Sufra Food Bank, 160 Pitfield Way, St Raphael’s on Monday 22 February between 1600 and 1900

Locations were chosen to be as close as possible to residents and businesses affected by the proposed changes and at different times to enable people to attend.

Comments made verbally at the drop in sessions included concerns about the scheme and its impacts, requests to revert to some previous bus routings in the area, suggestions for other changes of route for routes 206 and 224, ideas for new bus routes for the area, concerns about distribution of the consultation materials, and matters unrelated to the consultation.

3 Responses from members of the public

We received 69 responses from members of the public. There were 53 responses via our online survey form and 16 responses by letter, email or printed survey form. One response by email was from a person who had also responded via the online survey form so we combined the two responses, with a resulting total of 68 respondents.

Response type 60

0 Online survey form Printed survey form Email Letter Responses 53 10 4 1

Four responses sent by email or letter did not directly answer the questions we asked in the survey and are included in the totals for ‘Not Answered’ in the figures below, even if the answer to the question could be implied from other information provided.

We asked members of the public how they found out about the consultation. Of the 68 respondents, nearly half (32 respondents) received one of our emails while 11 respondents received our letter. The remaining 18 respondents who answered the question found out through other means. Of the six respondents reporting an ‘Other’ method, five reported hearing about the consultation from a neighbour, friend or from talk in the area.

How did you hear about this consultation? 60

0 Received Received a Read about Saw it on Other Social Not an email letter from it in the the TfL (please media Answered from TfL TfL press website specify)* Responses 32 11 1 9 2 6 7

* 1 respondent did not directly answer the question but the response has been implied from information provided

We also asked respondents about disabilities and health problems. Of the 68 respondents, half (34 respondents) reported their day-to-day activities not being limited, with around a fifth (14 respondents) reporting at least some limitation on their day-to-day activities.

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) 60

0 Prefer not to Yes, limited a Yes, limited a No say / Not Not answered lot little applicable Responses 9 5 34 11 9

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

For the closed questions, those who responded by email or letter, without using an online or printed survey form, have been included in the totals for ‘Not Answered’.

We asked how often respondents use route 206. Of the 68 respondents, just over half (36 respondents) stated that they use route 206 once a week or more. Only six stated that they never use route 206.

How often do you use route 206? 60

0 2 - 3 times Once a 1 - 2 times Not Daily Rarely Never a week week a month Answered Responses 18 16 2 9 13 6 4

We asked respondents whether they supported our proposed change to bus route 206.

Of the 68 respondents, just over half (36 respondents) stated that they supported or partially supported the proposed change. A quarter of the respondents (17 respondents) stated that they did not support the proposed change, with the remainder not sure, having no opinion or not answering the question.

When compared with respondents’ postcodes (for those who gave one), support for the proposed change was strongest in areas not directly affected by the proposed change of route. There was less support for the proposed change in or close to the area directly affected.

Do you support our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park? 60

0 Not Yes Partially Not sure No opinion No answered Responses 30 6 5 4 17 6

We asked how often respondents use route 224. Of the 68 respondents, just over half (37 respondents) stated that they use route 224 once a week or more. Twelve respondents stated that they never use route 224.

How often do you use route 224? 60

0 2 - 3 times Once a 1 - 2 times Not Daily Rarely Never a week week a month Answered Responses 18 17 2 6 8 12 5

We asked respondents whether they supported our proposed change to bus route 224.

Of the 68 respondents, fewer than half (28 respondents) stated that they supported or partially supported the proposed change. Nearly a third of respondents (21 respondents) stated that they did not support the proposed change, with the remainder not sure, having no opinion or not answering the question.

Do you support our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s? 60

0 Not Yes Partially Not sure No opinion No answered Responses 20 8 3 9 21 7

Of the open questions, question 3 asked “Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?”, whilst question 6 asked “Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?”

We took the comments made in answer to these questions and incorporated the comments received in six letters and emails which did not directly answer these questions. We then analysed the responses received, analysing questions 3 and 6 at the same time, as the proposed changes to routes 206 and 224 are closely related.

Of the 68 respondents, 46 made at least one comment relating to one or both routes. The comments have been categorised into 39 themes. The full list of comment categories with totals can be seen in Appendix B – Summary of all public comments received.

Table 3a shows the most frequently mentioned positive comments

Table 3a No. of times Positive Comments raised Route 206 General support for change 9 Southbound route would be shorter / more efficient / quicker / more 6 reliable Route 224 General support for change 7 Southbound route would be shorter / more efficient / quicker / more 5 reliable

Table 3b shows the most frequently mentioned comments against the proposed scheme. These were generally comments opposing the proposed changes or referring to specific difficulties which the proposed changes would create. The latter were mostly from older people and people with mobility difficulties living in the area served by bus stops E (Great Central Way) and G (North Circular Road) – Lynton Close, Yeats Close, Woodheyes Road, Gresham Road and Bridge Road. In particular, some respondents commented on the difficulty and / or personal safety aspect of walking a long distance, or over the footbridge to / from Brent Park Tesco, to use an alternative bus stop or to walk home.

Table 3b No. of times Comments against proposed scheme raised Route 206 Will have adverse impact on specific group 16 Problem with accessing route if removed from Great Central Way / 13 North Circular Road General opposition to change / Change is not beneficial / Request to 9 keep route as it is Suggests alternative cause of delays 2 Route 224 Will have adverse impact on specific group 14 Problem with accessing route if removed from Great Central Way / 14 North Circular Road General opposition to change / Change is not beneficial / Request to 10 keep route as it is General Concern about traffic congestion in area, including effect on buses 7 Concern about difficulties with buses during current works in the area 4

Table 3c shows the most frequently mentioned suggestions. The individual suggestions / questions varied widely.

Table 3c No. of times Suggestions raised Route 206 Suggestion for another change / concern about lack of another 4 change to route Route 224 Suggestion for another change / concern about lack of another 6 change to route General Suggestion / question about another existing route or a new route for 6 the area Suggests changing one route (206 / 224) but not both 2 Requests improvements to reliability in general (including northbound 2 crossing of North Circular Road)

Table 3d summarises all the comments received which appeared to result from a misunderstanding of the proposed changes.

Table 3d No. of times Concerns raised Question / concern about effect that would not happen to route 206 3 Question / concern about effect that would not happen to route 224 6

Table 3e summarises all the comments received which were unrelated to this consultation.

Table 3e No. of times Comments about matters unrelated to this consultation raised Question, comment, concern, suggestion about matter unrelated to 10 this consultation

4 Responses from stakeholders

Overview We received five responses from stakeholders. Three of these were via our online survey form and two were by email.

Two stakeholders heard about the consultation by email from us, one we telephoned and two did not answer the question about how they heard about the consultation.

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

London Borough of Brent Brent has been assisting TfL in planning for changes to bus services to support population and employment growth across the borough and to improve travel time reliability for buses. Given the significant growth which has already occurred in Wembley and Stonebridge Park, which is expected to continue into the future, we are supportive of bus network changes which will provide for improved journeys. We agree with TfL’s assessment that the proposed changes will result in shorter and more reliable journey times, which should help to drive patronage on buses into the future. Therefore, we support the proposals as presented by TfL.

We continue to hold discussions with TfL on the nature of the future bus network in and around the Wembley Opportunity Area and investigate any potential further improvements in order to fully utilise the new bus-gate at the junction of Drury Way and the A406 North Circular Road.

Heather Park Neighbour Watch Question 2 Do you support our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?: No opinion

Question 5 Do you support our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?: No opinion

Question 3 Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?: I do not use this service

Question 6 Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?: Although I use this service the part doesn't affect me

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.): It is very good and informative. Thank you.

London TravelWatch Question 2 Do you support our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?: Yes

Question 5 Do you support our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?: Yes

Question 3 Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?: On balance we think this is an improvement to local bus services.

Question 6 Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?: On balance we think this is an improvement to local bus services.

Metropolitan Police Service The Metropolitan Police service have no comments or objections.

St Raphaels Estate Question 2 Do you support our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?: Partially

Question 5 Do you support our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?: Partially

Question 3 Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?: Concerns are....Lynton close missed out of bus route; 206 not going into St Raphael's estate.

Question 6 Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?: No comments received

Appendix A – Main consultation materials

Email to stakeholders

Email to registered Oyster card holders

Letter to local households and businesses (with accompanying maps)

Letter distribution extent

Poster

Appendix B – Summary of all public comments received

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

Question 3 “Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 206 in Brent Park?”

Question 6 “Do you have any comments about our proposed change to bus route 224 in Brent Park and St Raphael’s?”

No. of times Positive Comments raised Route 206 General support for change 9 Southbound route would be shorter / more efficient / quicker / more reliable 6 Route 224 General support for change 7 Southbound route would be shorter / more efficient / quicker / more reliable 5 Only supports change to first and last stop from St Raphael's to Brent Park Tesco 1 General Praise for quality of bus route 206 / 224 1 No. of times Neutral Comments raised Route 206 Change would lead to short-lived confusion 1 Conditional support for change 1 Route 224 Change would lead to short-lived confusion 1 Change doesn't affect respondent 1

No. of times Comments against proposed scheme raised Route 206 Will have adverse impact on specific group 16 Problem with accessing route if removed from Great Central Way / 13 North Circular Road General opposition to change / Change is not beneficial / Request to 9 keep route as it is Suggests alternative cause of delays 2 Delays would still occur 1 Questions cost 1 Will have adverse impact on travel to school 1 Existing bus stop is a long way from Yeats Close 1 Route 224 Will have adverse impact on specific group 14 Problem with accessing route if removed from Great Central Way / 14 North Circular Road General opposition to change / Change is not beneficial / Request to 10 keep route as it is Questions cost 1 Change of first and last stop to Tesco will delay through journeys 1 General Concern about traffic congestion in area, including effect on buses 7 Concern about difficulties with buses during current works in the area 4

No. of times Suggestions raised Route 206 Suggestion for another change / concern about lack of another 4 change to route Request that buses don't run early following change to route 1 Route 224 Suggestion for another change / concern about lack of another 6 change to route General Suggestion / question about another existing route or a new route for 6 the area Suggests changing one route (206 / 224) but not both 2 Requests improvements to reliability in general (including northbound 2 crossing of North Circular Road) Changes when made should be publicised 1 Adjust traffic signals at North Circular Road junction 1 Suggestion to add traffic signals at Great Central Way / A406 junction 1 as an alternative to rerouting buses No. of times Concerns raised Question / concern about effect that would not happen to route 206 3 Question / concern about effect that would not happen to route 224 6 No. of times Comments about matters unrelated to this consultation raised Question, comment, concern, suggestion about matter unrelated to 10 this consultation No. of times Facts about existing situation raised Respondent states how he / she / others use routes 206 / 224 16 Refers to earlier changes to the network 2

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

Question 12 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.)”.

Of the 68 public respondents, 28 made at least one comment relating to the quality of the consultation. The comments have been categorised into 12 themes.

The majority of respondents to this question made positive comments, with the most frequently mentioned negative comments being about the map and concern that our emails or letters had not been received by bus users / residents.

No. of times Positive Comments raised General positive comment 14 Informative / Clear / Succinct / Easy to understand / Makes sense 12 Easy to take part / variety of response methods available 3 Detailed 2 Thanks for letting people know 1 No. of times Neutral Comments raised Adequate 2 No. of times Negative Comments raised Map is confusing 3 Didn't receive consultation email / letter 2 Concern over materials - residents threw away letters 1 Doubt as to whether responses will be read 1 Concern about coverage of drop in sessions 1 No. of times Suggestions raised Suggestion to improve maps 1

Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members Caroline Pidgeon AM GLA Darren Johnson AM GLA Gareth Bacon AM GLA Jenny Jones AM GLA Murad Qureshi AM GLA Nicky Gavron AM GLA Richard Tracey AM GLA Andrew Boff AM GLA Tom Copley AM GLA Stephen Knight AM GLA Joanne McCartney AM GLA Fiona Twycross AM GLA Valerie Shawcross AM GLA Onkar Sahota AM GLA Navin Shah AM GLA Barry Gardiner MP Brent North Dawn Butler MP Brent Central Tulip Siddiq MP Hampstead & Kilburn Virenda Sharma MP Ealing Southall Steven Pound MP Ealing North Rupa Huq MP Ealing Central & Acton Cllr Robert Roughan Welsh Harp Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Tim Cox Welsh Harp Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Amer Agha Welsh Harp Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Harbi Farah Stonebridge Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Roxanne Mashari Stonebridge Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi Stonebridge Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Sabina Khan Tokyngton Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala Tokyngton Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Muhammed Butt Tokyngton Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Janice Long Dudden Hill Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Krupesh Hirani Dudden Hill Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Aslam Choudry Dudden Hill Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Bobby Thomas Harlesden Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Lloyd McLeish Harlesden Ward, London Borough of Brent Cllr Aisha Eniola Harlesden Ward, London Borough of Brent

Local Authorities London Borough of Brent London Borough of Ealing

Police, Fire & Health Authorities Brent Safer Transport Team CCG NHS Brent CCG NHS Central London 27

Ealing Safer Transport Team London Ambulance Service London Fire Brigade London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Metropolitan Police

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

Local Interest Groups Alice's Wonderland Nursery Almost Big School / Stonebridge Community Nursery / Riverbank Nursery BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha Brent Adult and Community Education Service Brent Education Tuition Service Brent Friends of the Earth Brent Housing Partnership Brent Pensioners Forum Brent Transport Action Group Brentfield Dental Centre Brentfield Medical Centre Brentfield Primary School Carmel Hall Community Centre Community Car Scheme Eagle Nursery Ealing Civic Society Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Group Fawood Childrens Centre Harmony Children's Centre Hephzibah Day Nursery (previously Heritage Family Centre) Leopold Primary School (Gwenneth Rickus site) London Eye Trust Medway Estate Residents' Forum 28

Metropolitan Housing Association Mitchell Brook Primary School North West London Chamber of Commerce Norwood Green Residents' Association Park Royal Partnership Ltd Phoenix Arch School (previously Vernon House School) St Raphaels Residents Association Sufra NW London Sure Start, Stonebridge Centre Tesco (Brent Park) The Church, Woodheyes Hall The Swaminarayan School (Swaminarayan Prep School and Swaminarayan Senior School) West Twyford Residents' Association

Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Age Concern London Age UK (Brent) Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance BT Campaign for Better Transport Confederation of British Industry (CBI) 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 Joint Mobility Unit Living Streets London City Airport London Councils London Older People's Strategy Group London Tramlink London Underground MIND National Children's Bureau National Grid RADAR London Access Forum RNIB Royal Mail Royal Parks Sense Sixty Plus Stroke Association Thames Water The British Dyslexia Association