Written Submissions Received to Date for the Transport Committee's
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Written submissions received to date for the Transport Committee’s investigation into Bus services in London Contents: Page number: Submissions from guests and stakeholder organisations: Transport for London 1 Professor Peter White 24 Greg Challis, Sheffield 26 Unite 33 London Councils 34 London TravelWatch 52 Campaign for Better Transport - London 65 Living Streets 67 Age UK London 68 North London Transport Forum 72 Islington Age UK 74 Westminster Living Streets 84 Siemens 87 Andrew Bosi 91 Harriet Harman MP 93 Linzi Roberts-Egan (London Borough of Newham) 97 Gerry Devine 99 Kensal Rise Residents Association 104 Sutton Seniors' Forum 170 Barkingside21 171 Kilburn Older Voices Exchange 172 Ealing Fields Resident’s Association 177 Westcombe Society Environment Committee 191 Herne Hill Society 192 The Barnet Society 196 Highgate Society and HNF 201 Barnet Residents Association 202 Federation of Residents Associations in Barnet 203 Submissions from members of the public 205 Spreadsheets available on request to: [email protected] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Laura Warren London Assembly City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA 24 July 2013 Dear Laura Transport Committee’s investigation into bus services in London When we met recently to discuss our submission in more detail I said I would summarise some of the information about network planning in a note, which is attached. I hope this is useful and please do not hesitate to contact us again if there are questions. Yours sincerely John Barry Head of Network Development Copy to: Bob Blitz, Jamie Peters 17 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON Additional Information 1. Introduction 1.1. This note provides additional information on topics in our main submission of 19 June 2013. 2. Network review 2.1. Our submission described the strategic context of network planning, our processes for understanding passenger and stakeholder priorities, how we devise and appraise detailed schemes, and the formal consultation that is carried out before any scheme is finalised. 2.2. London’s bus service is designed as a network. Service planning seeks to deploy the available resources in the way which maximise the benefit to passengers. The individual routes in the network are thus the end result of a process which starts from consideration of passengers’ travel needs, present and future. Market research consistently shows that passengers want a network which is: • Simple to understand and easy to use. • Frequent and reliable, with waiting times minimised. • Comprehensive, in terms of geographical spread and in terms of coverage over the whole day and week. 2.3. This is best delivered through a network structured around routes which: • Give direct links at high frequency for the higher passenger flows. • Provide good connectivity for interchange with other services and with rail. • Offer reliable services (which is partly driven by how long the routes are and partly by providing adequate schedules and resourcing). 2.4. Of course no city starts from scratch when determining its transport network. In fact, the need for network “overhauls” can be a sign that there has not been sufficiently regular matching and rematching of supply and demand. The approach in London delivers strategic change through a process which also allows for regular alterations to services as required by changing travel needs. Usage has increased by over 60% in the last 13 years and the network-based approach to service development has played a significant part in this. 2.5. Travel demand will change for a variety of reasons. Alterations in the location and intensity of development are the most obvious factors, but changes in areas such as health and education policy and expansion of 18 the rail network are also very significant. Many of these changes will take place gradually and hence the bus network needs to be ready to adapt continuously, to the land-use or policy changes causing the change in bus demand. 2.6. For example, in Barking Riverside we maintain an overall network development masterplan covering services to, from and within the area and based on the land-use masterplan. However we also provide regular local change which matches actual delivery of the masterplan “on the ground”, and which then feeds back into revision of the overall plan. We are also working with other councils to ensure that our thinking is aligned with their latest information on planned developments. 3. Relationship with engagement and consultation 3.1. Our engagement and consultation processes have expanded considerably over the past 13 years. They include: • Project-based liaison with boroughs, developers and others with information on schemes which will alter bus demand. • Engagement with users through correspondence, public meetings, elected representatives, and via London TravelWatch. • Structured engagement with boroughs through liaison meetings and invitations to comment on forthcoming planning work. • Formal consultation via the TfL website on specific change proposals. 3.2. An example of project-based liaison is our current work with boroughs directly affected by Crossrail. We have completed a series of informal meetings with borough officers at which we shared information on the possible bus demand impacts and invited early comments on borough aspirations for bus service change. As with all our planning, any service changes introduced to complement Crossrail will also be designed around all other relevant network demand and pressures. 3.3. Hence, for example in West London we are aware of aspirations for further improvements in links to the Park Royal Opportunity Area. While there are many such links at present, we consider that it may be possible to do more by feeding this aspiration into the work we will do to analyse potential network changes related to demand changes at Acton Mainline Station when Crossrail services start. In south-east London, following discussions with Bexley Council we have agreed that a review seeking to strengthen bus connections between Bexleyheath and Abbey Wood Station is a priority: this not only adds connectivity to Crossrail but is also consistent with wider aspirations to develop Bexley’s north-south links. 19 3.4. This model applies equally to other areas of work – a current priority relates to NHS changes. We seek direct involvement wherever possible with NHS planning staff in order to make then aware of the data and information we would need to carry out our investigations of potential network changes. 3.5. As part of our structured engagement with boroughs and others we also invite comments on routes which are being studied as part of our pre- tendering “healthcheck” of each route’s service specification. Our invitation to comment specifically invites boroughs to make us aware of other issues or aspirations in their areas. Many, though not all, take this up and doing so enables us to incorporate the aspirations into current or future planning work. An example of this is the Upper Lea Valley, between Tottenham Hale and Waltham Cross where we have developed services over the years in response to aspirations from Enfield and Haringey Councils, and will continue to do so. 3.6. Following on from these processes of research, engagement and understanding there is a stage at which specific options are developed to test whether (and when) network development aspirations can be delivered. Quantification is in line with the standard TfL approach which includes estimating how people’s travel time will be affected (converted to money units using a value of time), and understanding wider benefits and their influence on the specific choices being faced. Benefits are then set against cost to allow consideration of relative value for money and whether sufficient budget is available. It is important to see the appraisal stage within this wider context of engagement – it explains for example why developing services to and from hospitals has been such a key part of our planning, reflecting the priority we, our passengers and our stakeholder place on such connections. 4. Summary 4.1. In summary all of our planning takes account of requirements on a network basis, based on comprehensive information about passenger usage and requirements and working with our stakeholders to maintain alignment with future development. The outcomes for individual routes will vary from “no change” to relatively small-scale alterations (for example a minor diversion to serve a new development) to major network reorganisation. A recent example is the review which delivered a reduction in bus flow on the busiest part of Oxford Street, achieved by a mix of significant structural changes to the network and frequency / capacity adjustments. The forthcoming changes to services in and around the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park have also been derived from area-based network planning supported by extensive engagement with stakeholders. 20 5. Other technical questions Definition of crowding 5.1. The approach to this is by consideration of service capacity and passenger waiting times, as covered in sections 12-16 of the Bus Service Planning Guidelines. In particular the Guidelines state that “[Service] capacity should generally be set so that most passengers can normally board the first bus to arrive where the scheduled interval between buses is every ten minutes or more. Where the interval is less than this, passengers should normally be able to board within ten minutes of arriving at their stop.” 5.2. Additionally, while we aim for high levels of reliability, we need to allow for the fact that there will inevitably be variations away from the scheduled intervals between buses, especially during the busiest times on the road network. Also, passengers may not always arrive at stops at a constant rate. Therefore we aim to set the scheduled capacities in such way that the capacity which is actually delivered will match the demand.