Routes 27 & 440 Consultation Report

Consultation on proposed changes to bus routes 27 and 440

Consultation Report November 2018

Contents

Executive summary ...... 4 Summary of issues raised during consultation ...... 4 Next steps ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Purpose ...... 5 1.3 Detailed description ...... 7 2.1 Purpose ...... 9 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 9 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 9 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 9 2.5 What we asked ...... 10 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 10 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 10 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 11 3. About the respondents ...... 12 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 12 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation (public respondents) ...... 12 3.3 Methods of responding (public respondents) ...... 12 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 13 4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 ...... 13 4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 ...... 13 4.3 Summary of responses to Question 3 ...... 14 4.4 Issues commonly raised ...... 14 4.5 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 17 4.6 Comments on the consultation ...... 18 5. Next steps ...... 18 Appendix A: Consultation materials ...... 19 Appendix B: List of stakeholders consulted ...... 25 Appendix C: Response to Issues Raised ...... 28

2 Response to issues commonly raised ...... 28

3 Executive summary

Between 2 July and 12 August 2018, we consulted on proposals to change routes 27 and 440 in Chiswick. (We consulted separately on proposals to extend route 440 in Wembley).

We proposed to make route 27 more reliable by terminating it at Hammersmith Grove, removing the least-used section (between Hammersmith and Chiswick Business Park). Also, under our proposals – at night only – route 27 would not travel between Hammersmith Bus Station and Hammersmith Grove. It would operate as route N27.

We also proposed to run route 440 through Chiswick Business Park and continue along Oxford Road North / Wellesley Road / Heathfield Terrace before terminating at Turnham Green Church near the local Sainsbury’s.

We received 607 responses to the consultation (including three responses from stakeholders). Of the 604 public responses, nine per cent supported or strongly supported the proposed changes to route 27, three per cent neither supported nor opposed them, 72 per cent opposed or strongly opposed them, three per cent did not use the route and 13 per cent did not answer. For the proposed changes to route 440, 14 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposals, 15 per cent neither supported nor opposed them, 14 per cent opposed or strongly opposed them, 43 per cent did not use the route and 14 per cent did not answer.

Summary of issues raised during consultation  The issue of broken links between Gunnersbury / Chiswick and central London – due to the removal of route 27 between Chiswick Business Park and Hammersmith bus station – was an important issue to local people  Concerns were raised about the impact of the proposed changes on school pupils, whose schools are located along the removed section of route 27  Concerns were raised about the additional walking distance to reach bus stops on the sections of route 440 which would no longer be served under the proposals

Next steps We have reviewed all of the consultation responses and intend to proceed with the scheme as proposed in early 2019 with one alteration: instead of terminating at

4 Hammersmith Grove, route 27 would terminate at a bus stand on Glenthorne Road currently used by rail replacement buses. The last and first stops would be at this location instead of at Hammersmith Grove. This is because the Hammersmith Grove stand has been removed as part of a local urban realm scheme.

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction In 2017 we consulted on proposed changes to a number of bus routes in west London, as part of our plans for the Elizabeth line. Since then we have carried out further work to improve the bus network in the area.

We have now developed a new set of proposals for route 440 that would:

 provide a new direct bus link between Gunnersbury, Acton and the planned Elizabeth line station at Acton Main Line  improve bus links into Chiswick Business Park from South Acton Estate  provide a direct link between stops at the northern end of Chiswick Business Park and Gunnersbury station

Our review of bus services serving inner west London also revealed a number of routes that were running with a lot of spare capacity (buses that are not full). We are therefore proposing the followings changes to route 27:

 make route 27 more reliable route by terminating it at Hammersmith Grove, which will remove the least-used section of the route (between Hammersmith and Chiswick Business Park)  create a short new local link from King Street to Glenthorne Road and Hammersmith Grove  turn buses around at Hammersmith Bus Station at night, removing an underused section of the route between the bus station and Hammersmith Grove. (This truncated route would operate as the ‘N27’.)

We also proposed to extend route 440 from Stonebridge Park and Wembley via Harrow Road. Those proposals were consulted on separately at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-224-and-440/.

1.2 Purpose Route 27

5 We constantly review our bus services to ensure we have enough buses to meet passenger demand. Currently, there is a lot of spare capacity (i.e. buses that are not full) on routes running between Hammersmith and Chiswick.

While route 27 is used by many people in some areas it is not being well used along this stretch, which is not an effective use of our limited resources.

 Our analysis of the demand for bus services at Turnham Green (on Chiswick High Road) shows that a maximum of around 16 buses per hour are required. We currently provide 30 buses per hour. Removing route 27 (which accounts for eight buses per hour) would take the total number of buses provided per hour down to 22, more than enough to serve the demand along this corridor  Similarly, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green 10 buses per hour are required to serve existing demand at most. We currently provide 22 buses per hour. Removing route 27’s eight buses per hour from this total would take the total number of buses provided per hour down to 14, more than enough to serve the demand along this corridor

It is also very lightly used between Turnham Green Church and Chiswick Business Park (because it cannot serve the stops at Gunnersbury station to the west of the entrance to the business park because it turns right into the business park itself before it gets to that point).

People who currently use route 27 to travel between Hammersmith and Chiswick Business Park would still be able to make that journey on one of the following routes:

 237  267  391  H91

Route N27

Under our proposals – at night only – route 27 would not travel between Hammersmith Bus Station and Hammersmith Grove. It would operate as route N27.

Cutting the route back slightly so that it turns around at the bus station during these hours removes the under-used section along King Street when the shops are closed.

Under the proposals eastbound route N27 services would run every 30 minutes. The first service towards Chalk Farm, Morrisons would depart Hammersmith Bus Station at 00:35 (no later than 00:40). The last service would depart the bus station at 05:15 (no earlier than 05:10).

Westbound N27 services would also run every 30 minutes. The first service towards Hammersmith Bus Station from Chalk Farm, Morrisons would depart at 00:55 (no

6 later than 01:00). The last service would depart Chalk Farm, Morrisons at 05:05 (no earlier than 05:00).

Outside of these hours the service would operate as route 27 and would resume service the stretch between Hammersmith Bus Station and Hammersmith Grove.

Route 440

Following analysis of the trips that people make in this area we believe the community would be better served by a new and more direct link into the business park from the north. Customers using this more direct route 440 service would benefit from reduced journey times to Acton, Park Royal and the Elizabeth line (when it opens in 2019).

We are proposing to run route 440 through Chiswick Business Park and continue along Oxford Road North / Wellesley Road / Heathfield Terrace before terminating at Turnham Green Church near the local Sainsbury’s.

1.3 Detailed description

1.3.1 Route 27 Under the proposals route 27 buses would no longer travel westbound from Hammersmith Grove. Instead they would terminate at Hammersmith Grove before turning around and travelling eastbound. This would affect around 1,200 passengers a day who currently use route 27 to travel between Gunnersbury / Chiswick Business Park / Chiswick High Road and stops east of Hammersmith bus station.

These passengers would still be able to complete this journey by bus with a single change at Hammersmith bus station onto route 190, 267, 391 or H91. The Hopper fare means this is free of charge.

Alternatively, customers could travel to Gunnersbury station on the District line from Hammersmith station, and change to route 440 there.

1.3.2 Route N27

Under the proposals route 27 buses would no longer travel westbound from Hammersmith Grove. Instead they would terminate at Hammersmith Grove before turning around and travelling eastbound. This would affect around 1,200 passengers a day who currently use route 27 to travel between Gunnersbury / Chiswick Business Park / Chiswick High Road and stops east of Hammersmith bus station.

7 These passengers would still be able to complete this journey by bus with a single change at Hammersmith bus station onto route 190, 267, 391 or H91. The Hopper fare means this is free of charge.

Alternatively, customers could travel to Gunnersbury station on the District line from Hammersmith station, and change to route 440 there.

1.3.3 Route 440 Travelling southbound the bus would run – as it does now – along Bollo Lane. Under the proposals, instead of continuing past Weston Road towards Chiswick Park station, it would turn right into Chiswick Business Park. It would then run through the business park – following the same alignment as route 27 – but instead turn right onto Chiswick High Road before turning left onto Oxford Road North. It would then run along Wellesley Road / Heathfield Terrace and around Turnham Green. It would then turn left back on to Chiswick High Road and left again onto Town Hall Avenue to start its northbound journey through the business park (following the above route in reverse). 1.3.4 Map of proposed changes

8 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond

 To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the proposals

 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 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme Our conclusion and next steps are set out in section 5.

2.3 Who we consulted We sought the views of customers currently using routes 27 and 440. We also consulted stakeholders including the London Borough of Hounslow, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Transport for All, Age UK, local politicians, and local resident and community groups. A full list of the stakeholders consulted can be found in Appendix B.

2.4 Dates and duration This was a six week consultation which ran between 2 July and 12 August 2018.

9 2.5 What we asked The questionnaire asked a series of generic questions relating to name, email address, postcode, organisation name (if responding on behalf of a business, stakeholder or organisation), how they had heard about the consultation, and views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were also asked questions on the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to provide any comments).

There were four questions specific to the consultation:

 Which of these buses do you use and how often do you use them? (Respondents were given a choice of six answers: Daily, 2-3 days a week, once a week, 1-2 times a month, rarely, never)  What do you think about our proposals for route 27? (The choices for respondents were strongly support, support, neither support or oppose, oppose, strongly oppose, not applicable, I don’t use this route)  What do you think about our proposals for route 440? (The choices for respondents were strongly support, support, neither support or oppose, oppose, strongly oppose, not applicable, I don’t use this route)  Do you have any comments? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)

2.6 Methods of responding People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond by accessing the online questionnaire; by using our freepost address at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS; or by emailing [email protected]

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We sent out emails to registered customers who use routes 27 and 440. We also consulted stakeholders including the London Borough of Hounslow, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Transport for All, Age UK, local politicians, and local resident and community groups. We displayed notices at bus stops along the routes concerned where space was available.

2.7.1 Website The consultation was published online via the TfL consultation website at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/.

2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets Letters were sent to stakeholders identified along either route who did not have an email address. See Appendix B.

10 2.7.3 Emails to public We sent an email with a link to the online consultation to registered users of routes 27, 224 (which was being consulted on at the same time) and 440 (in both Chiswick and Wembley). In total, 27,931 emails were sent out. See Appendix A.

2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders An email about the consultation was sent to stakeholders including the London Borough of Hounslow, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Transport for All, Age UK, local politicians, and local resident and community groups. See Appendix B.

A separate email was sent to 529 respondents of 2017’s consultation on proposed changes to buses in West London for the opening of the Elizabeth line, inviting them to comment and giving them the option of opting out.

2.7.5 On-site advertising Notices about the proposals were placed at 27 bus stops along routes 27 and 440. See Appendix A.

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out in-house by TfL.

There were two “open” questions (one seeking comments about the proposals and one on the quality of the consultation). One person conducted the tagging exercise; a draft coding frame was developed for responses to these questions, which was finalised following review by another member of the team. Responses received by letter or email were coded using the same framework. There were 11 duplicate responses which were merged and deleted.

11 3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total % Public responses 604 99.5% Stakeholder responses 3 0.5% Total 607 100%

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation (public respondents) 490 out of 604 public respondents answered this question.

How respondents heard Total %

Received an email from TfL 187 31% Received a letter from TfL 4 1% Read about in the press 70 12% Saw it on the TfL website 45 7% Social media 95 16% Other 89 15% Not Answered 114 19% Total 604 100%

3.3 Methods of responding (public respondents)

Methods of responding Total % Website 532 88% Email/Letter 72 12% Total 604 100%

12 4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 607 responses to the consultation. 604 were from members of the public and three were from stakeholders. A summary of the responses from members of the public is set out in section 4.1 to 4.4. The three responses from stakeholders are included in section 4.5.

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 We asked respondents how often they used these bus routes.

Daily 2-3 times a Once a 1-2 times Rarely Never Total week week a month responses Route 27 195 36% 183 33% 69 13% 57 10% 27 5% 16 3% 547 100% 440 35 11% 36 11% 21 7% 41 13% 71 22% 113 36% 317 100%

4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 We asked respondents to tell us what they thought about our overall proposals for route 27. 526 respondents answered this question.

What do you think of our proposals to change route 27? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Not Neither Strongly Strongly applicable/ Not Support support or Oppose Total support oppose I don’t use Answered oppose this route Responses 26 31 21 54 378 16 78 604 % 4 5 3 9 63 3 13 100

13 4.3 Summary of responses to Question 3 We asked respondents to tell us what they thought about our overall proposals for route 440. 521 respondents answered this question.

What do you think of our proposals to change route 440? 300

250

200

150

100

0 Not Neither Strongly Strongly applicable/I Not Support support or Oppose support oppose don’t use Answered oppose this route Responses 41 43 91 33 53 260 83 604 % 7 7 15 5 9 43 14 100

4.4 Issues commonly raised Question 4 asked respondents if they had any further comments or suggestions about our proposals. 455 respondents provided additional comments (positive and negative) and suggestions in response to this question. The table below lists the main issues raised and a separate document will respond to the key points raised by respondents.

Support proposals/positive comments 27: Support proposed changes 12 440: Support proposed changes 10 27: Route is little used on this section anyway 8 General support for all proposals 8 27: Proposals will reduce congestion/improve environment 6 440: Support changes as it provides a better/faster option 6 27: Support if it means reliability will improve 4 Oppose proposals/negative comments and concerns 27: changes will remove direct link between Chiswick and Kensington/Notting Hill Gate and Paddington 119 27: Cutting back the route will have a negative impact on my journey 119 27: Do not withdraw between Hammersmith & Chiswick 91

14 27: Cutting back the route will mean having to change buses 85 27: Changes will remove direct link between Chiswick and the Central London / the West End 84 27: Cutting back route will be inconvenient for disabled/elderly/less mobile passengers 60 27: Changes will remove direct link between Chiswick and St Mary's Hospital/other medical facilities 40 27: Using the Tube instead isn’t an option (eg. because of costs, accessibility or crowding) 39 27: Cutting back route will be inconvenient for school children 38 27: Generally oppose proposed changes 34 27: Though not full, the bus is well-used and relied upon by the community 32 27: Changes will remove direct link between Chiswick and Chalk Farm/North London 31 27: Route provides an important link for businesses at Chiswick Business Park 31 Changing buses/more walking is less safe, especially at night 26 27: Route is always busy between Hammersmith and Chiswick 24 27: Changes will mean other local routes are more crowded 23 27: Hammersmith bus station is very busy; having to change buses here will add to the crowding in the area 20 27: The changes will mean incurring extra travel costs 17 440: Route changes will be inconvenient for disabled/elderly/less mobile passengers 15 440: Changes will have a negative impact on my journey 13 440: Will have to walk further at Chiswick Park station to catch bus 12 Generally oppose the proposals 12 440: Changes will remove links to doctors and High St 11 440: Generally oppose proposed changes 11 440: Journey will be worse from Acton Green 11 27: Bus often takes more than hour so Hopper fare not applicable 10 440: Changes will remove direct link between South Acton and Chiswick High St 10 27: This change is only necessary to mitigate the negative impact of CS9 on traffic 8 27: Section of route to be withdrawn isn’t duplicated by direct Tube service 8 440: No explanation of why 440 should be diverted via Business Park 6 There are fewer buses along Chiswick High St in reality than your figures suggest 5 27: Changes will mean more walking to get to bus network 4 440: Only bus serving the section of Bollo Lane near Chiswick Park station 4 27: Route will be more important as Olympia expands/develops 3 Changing buses is difficult for those with disabilities 3 27: Having a separate shorter night route makes things more confusing 2 27: Night bus should serve Hammersmith Grove section - there are houses there too 2 440: Provides a direct link from Fisher’s Lane to Central Middlesex hospital 2 440: Provides a direct link from Fisher’s Lane to Stirling Road tip 2 There is more demand for buses travelling east-west than from Chiswick-north 2 Suggestions and questions 27: Terminate at Turnham Green instead 32 27: Reduce frequency rather than cutting the route back 17 27: Terminate some buses at Hammersmith & keep others running through to Chiswick 15

15 27: The 27 provides the only 24hr service between Hammersmith and Chiswick/keep night service to Chiswick 13 27: Terminate at Stamford Brook instead 13 27: How did TfL determine low usage in Chiswick? 6 27: If you moved the first/last stop to the front entrance of the Business Park, more people would use it 6 27: Cut back other routes (e.g. 190) to Hammersmith as 27 provides such good links into London 5 27: Terminate at Gunnersbury station 4 27: Terminate at Ravenscourt Park 4 27: Will the change mean more buses are available on other routes/what will the saved resources be used for? 4 Changes would make more sense if Piccadilly line served Turnham Green 4 What happened to £537k paid to TfL by LB Hounslow to buy a bus for route 27? 4 440: Route clockwise around Chiswick instead of going via Power Road 3 Double decks on route 391 would make the 27 changes more viable 3 Is this a genuine consultation or just a box ticking exercise? 3 27: Are the cost savings big enough to merit the change? 2 27: Frequency needs to be increased 2 27: Terminate in Chiswick (e.g., bus garage, Post Office, Town Hall) 2 Extend route 9 from Hammersmith to Chiswick Business Park 2 Have you carried out an Equalities Impact Assessment? 2 Is the 27 being removed from Chiswick Business Park just to provide space for the 440? 2 Will these changes be done in conjunction with the E3/94 changes? 2 General comments TfL is making this decision for commercial reasons and not to benefit customers 27 Change will increase car use and discourage bus use 19 Route 237 doesn’t serve Hammersmith bus station as stated 12 27: Only underused because passengers are frustrated by drivers (poor driving, driver changes etc.) 9 There should be more buses along Chiswick High Rd not less 8 27: Chiswick High Road corridor can't be looked at in isolation - need to consider the bigger picture 7 27: Other bus routes in the area are less used than the 27 7 27: Timing needs to be adjusted to stop bunching 5 27: Provides an link for Tube passengers when District line is disrupted 3 It will still be difficult for Chiswick residents to access Crossrail 3 TfL is neglecting links to Olympia 2 Other 440: comment about proposed changes to other parts of the route 9 Comment not related to consultation 8 Stop cutting bus routes 5 Not acceptable to run a consultation during the summer holidays 3 Not affected by changes 3 Not acceptable to run a consultation online only - discriminates against elderly people 2

4.5 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

London Borough of Hounslow Supported the changes to route 440. Felt they should help provide enhanced north- south links from Chiswick/Gunnersbury up to Acton and the new Elizabeth Line.

Objected to the proposed curtailment of route 27 at Hammersmith.

Commented that funding had been secured by the council for the extension of route 27 into Chiswick Business Park as mitigation for the transport impacts of the development. Were concerned about the precedent that would be set if TfL was subsequently to cut this route and in effect removed that mitigation. Felt that it would call into question whether funding for bus route enhancements can properly be considered as appropriate mitigation to the transport impacts of development. Commented that if the council had been aware at the time of the possibility that he 27 would be cut back in the future, it would have been highly unlikely to have argued that the funding of a sponsored route agreement at the cost of £521,000 be entered into. The funding could instead have been used for more permanent mitigation, for example enhancements to cycle accessibility at the site or to Gunnersbury station which is already nearing capacity in the morning peak.

Noted that one of the potential reasons for poor ridership on the 27 is that buses are unable to stop at the southern end of Chiswick Business Park or to access Gunnersbury station. Felt that the failure to facilitate these stops in part rests with TfL. Proposed that, at a minimum, stops at this location should be provided and tested for a sufficient period to measure their impact on ridership before any changes are made to route 27.

Commented that the ‘Great West Corridor’, with Gunnersbury sitting at its eastern most point, is proposed as a new opportunity area within the draft London Plan, delivering around 7,500 new homes and 14,000 new jobs. Noted that previous studies have shown transport to be a key limiter of future growth, with highway capacity a particularly acute constraint. Felt therefore that removing public transport options in this corridor would seem perverse at a time when the council is expected to deliver growth under the Mayor’s own development plan proposals.

Hoped therefore that TfL would reconsider the proposals for route 27.

17 London TravelWatch Felt that it was unacceptable to curtail route 27 at Hammersmith resulting in 1200 passengers a day having to change buses.

Recognised that route 440 will be disrupted by increases in rail services and the additional level crossing closures that would result. However, were concerned that Chiswick Park station would no longer be served by bus. Noted that no indication was given of how many passengers this would affect, but suggested this change would still be problematic even if the number of passengers affected was small. Suggested that TfL investigate providing some bus service to the station.

Bishops Close Community Association Thought it was unnecessary to have bus routes between Turnham Green and Chiswick Business Park, as the infrastructure provided by rail services could handle passenger demand. Felt it was unlikely that there would be passengers using bus services from this part of the route into central London.

Commented that TfL should be increasing bus fares to relieve the strains on budgets.

4.6 Comments on the consultation 496 respondents provided a comment on the quality of the consultation and associated materials. 251 respondents (42 per cent) felt the quality of the consultation was good or very good, 149 (25 per cent) thought it was acceptable, and 96 (16 per cent) felt it was poor or very poor.

Of the further issues raised about the quality of the consultation, the main issue was concern that the consultation not publicised well enough and that residents were not adequately consulted. This was raised by 45 (seven per cent) respondents. Other issues raised included comments that consultation material/maps were not clear, confusing or inaccurate, concern that the consultation was just a ‘tick-box’ exercise, and concern that the consultation took place during the summer holidays.

5. Next steps

We have reviewed all of the consultation responses and intend to proceed with the scheme as proposed in early 2019 with one alteration: instead of terminating at Hammersmith Grove, route 27 would terminate at a bus stand on Glenthorne Road currently used by rail replacement buses. The last and first stops would be at this location instead of at Hammersmith Grove. This is because the Hammersmith Grove stand has been removed as part of a local urban realm scheme.

18 Appendix A: Consultation materials

Letter issued to stakeholders with no email address:

20 Map of proposed changes, used on website:

Stakeholder email:

21 Text of the stakeholder email:

Subject: Proposed changes to bus routes 27 and 440 Dear Sir/Madam Last year we consulted on proposed changes to a number of bus routes in west London, as part of our plans for the Elizabeth line. Since then we have carried out further work to improve the bus network in the area.

We have now developed a new set of proposals for route 440 that would:

 make route 27 more reliable by terminating it at Hammersmith Grove, which will remove the least-used section of the route (between Hammersmith and Chiswick Business Park)  create a short new local link from King Street to Glenthorne Road and Hammersmith Grove  turn buses around at Hammersmith Bus Station at night, removing an underused section of the route between the bus station and Hammersmith Grove. (This truncated route would operate as the ‘N27’.)

More details of the above proposals are published here tfl.gov.uk/routes-27-440.

We are also proposing to extend route 440 from Stonebridge Park and Wembley via Harrow Road. Those proposals are being consulted on separately at tfl.gov.uk/routes-224-440.

If you have any comments on either or both of our proposals, you can:

 Visit our website using the individual links above and respond to the questionnaires  Email us at [email protected]  Write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

We are inviting anyone who is interested in the proposals to ask questions or provide comments by Sunday 12 August 2018.

Subject to the feedback we receive, we plan to implement these changes in autumn 2018.

22 Text of email sent to registered users of routes 27 and 440:

Dear recipient,

We would like your views on proposed changes to bus routes 27, 224 and 440. Find out more and share your views on the proposed changes to routes 27 and 440 (in Gunnersbury) here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/

Find out more and share your views on the proposed changes to routes 224 and 440 (in Wembley) here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-224-and-440/

The proposed changes to route 440 would:

 Provide new links from Stonebridge Park station to the Wembley Stadium area where a large number of homes, shops and employment is being delivered  Provide a new direct bus link between Gunnersbury, Acton and the planned Elizabeth line station at Acton Main Line

These consultations will run until 12 August 2018.

23 Copy of bus stop notice:

24 Appendix B: List of stakeholders consulted

Local Authorities London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough of Hounslow

Elected Members Cllr Steve Curran Council Leader, Hounslow Council Cllr Lily Bath Deputy Leader, Hounslow Council Cllr Hanif Khan Transport Cabinet Member, Hounslow Cllr Guy Lambert Highways Cabinet Member, Hounslow Cllr Katherine Dunne Communities Cabinet Member, Hounslow Cllr Sam Hearn Conservative Leader, Hounslow Cllr Stephen Cowan Council Leader, Hammersmith Council Cllr Sue Fennimore Deputy Leader, Hammersmith Council Cllr Wes Harcourt Transport Cabinet Member, Hammersmith Council

Cllr Andrew Brown Conservative Leader, Hammersmith Tony Arbour Assembly Member Seema Malhotra Member of Parliament Rupa Huq Member of Parliament Ruth Cadbury Member of Parliament Cllr Josh Blacker Ward councillor, South Acton (Ealing) Cllr Yvonne Johnson Ward councillor, South Acton (Ealing) Cllr Mik Sabiers Ward councillor, South Acton (Ealing) Cllr Gary Busuttil Ward councillor, Southfield (Ealing) Cllr Gary Malcolm Ward councillor, Southfield (Ealing) Cllr Andrew Steed Ward councillor, Southfield (Ealing) Cllr Joanna Biddolph Ward councillor, Turnham Green (Hounslow) Cllr Ranjut Gill Ward councillor, Turnham Green (Hounslow) Cllr Ron Mushino Ward councillor, Turnham Green (Hounslow) Cllr Michael Denniss Ward councillor, Chiswick Riverside (Hounslow) Cllr Gabriella Giles Ward councillor, Chiswick Riverside (Hounslow) Cllr Patrick Barr Ward councillor, Chiswick Homefields (Hounslow) Cllr Gerald McGregor Ward councillor, Chiswick Homefields (Hounslow) Cllr John Todd Ward councillor, Chiswick Homefields (Hounslow) Cllr Jonathan Caleb- Ward councillor, Ravenscourt Park (LBHF) CllrLandy Bora Kwon Ward councillor, Ravenscourt Park (LBHF) Cllr Asif Siddique Ward councillor, Ravenscourt Park (LBHF) Cllr P.J. Murphy Ward councillor, Hammersmith Broadway (LBHF) Cllr Patricia Quigley Ward councillor, Hammersmith Broadway (LBHF)

25 Health Authorities Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust London Ambulance Service

Transport Groups West London Alliance WestTrans

Accessibility Groups Transport for All Age UK Hounslow Disability Network Hounslow Hounslow Pensioners’ Forum Hounslow Deaf Club Middlesex Association for the Blind Speak Out In Hounslow Action on Disability

Local Interest Groups / local stakeholders Gunnersbury Station Action Group (Chair) Gunnersbury Station Action Group (Members) Enjoy Work Chiswick Business Park (CEO) Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia Cultural Bureau in London Sainsbury's Chiswick Superstore Sainsbury's Head Office Belmont Primary School Latymer Upper School West London Free School St Paul's CE Primary School Lyric Hammersmith The Godolphin and Latymer School West London Free School Primary John Betts Primary School Flora Gardens Primary School Ravenscourt Park Prep School Orchard House School Chiswick & Bedford Park Preparatory School Tara House Montessori School Arts Educational Schools London St. Peter's CoE Primary School

26 Ravenscourt Park Pre-School Le Hérisson School Westside School Charing Cross Hospital Chiswick Family Doctors Practice Glebe Street Surgery Chiswick Family Practice Acton Lane Medical Centre Hammersmith Surgery Bedford Park Surgery Really Nice Dentist Chiswick Dental Smile Care Dental Clinic White Dental & Cosmetic Rooms Chiswick Smiles Advanced Aesthetic Dentistry Dental Kids Branemark London Dentart London Ravenscourt Dental Practice 92 Dental Boulis Dentist Centre Chiswick W4 Forum Quintain Hounslow Chamber of Commerce Hammersmith & Fulham Chamber of Commerce

27 Appendix C: Response to Issues Raised

Response to issues commonly raised Below are our responses to the key issues raised:

 Route 27 is a reliable and well used service that provides a direct link between Chiswick and west, central and north London, including St Mary's Hospital and other medical facilities. These changes will have a negative impact (e.g. having to change buses, increased journey times) on passengers, particularly the elderly and disabled, schoolchildren, families with small children and other less mobile passengers.

Passengers wishing to continue their journey beyond Hammersmith to Chiswick will be able to change at Hammersmith bus station onto route 190, 267 or H91 (which provide a combined frequency of 16 buses per hour, or a bus every 3-4 minutes).

All London bus routes provide step free travel and the ‘Hopper’ fare (which allows passengers to use as many buses as they like within one hour for the price of one journey) means that changing buses is now easier than ever.

 Instead of cutting back the 27 all the way to Hammersmith, could it be run to a location more convenient for Chiswick residents (e.g. Turnham Green, Stamford Brook, Ravenscourt Park or Gunnersbury station)?

The current bus network provides unnecessary excess capacity along Chiswick High Road with a bus every two minutes between Stamford Brook and Chiswick Business Park. Withdrawing route 27 will reduce some of the spare capacity but still leave sufficient capacity to continue to meet current levels of passenger demand (a bus every three minutes).

 Rather than withdrawing route 27 entirely between Chiswick Business Park and Hammersmith, could it continue through to Chiswick at a reduced frequency, or be restructured so that some buses terminate at Hammersmith and others run all the way through to Chiswick?

Reducing the frequency of route 27 would most likely result in crowding along the section of the route within central London.

We aim to provide a bus network that is as simple as possible for passengers to understand. One of the ways we do this is to ensure all the buses on a given route start and finish from the same locations and that routes operate at roughly the same level of frequency throughout the day on Mondays to Saturdays.

28  Route 27 provides the only 24-hour service between Hammersmith and Chiswick. If the changes go ahead could the night service be retained?

Night route N9 will continue to provide a connection between Hammersmith and Chiswick at night.

 The changes to route 27 will result in more crowding on other local routes.

Our analysis of passenger numbers along Chiswick High Road shows that the remaining bus services would have sufficient capacity to continue to meet demand, following the withdrawal of route 27.

 The changes to route 440 will make bus travel from South Acton and Acton Green more difficult particularly for older, disabled and less mobile passengers, removing direct links to shopping and medical facilities.

Although some people will have a longer walk to their nearest bus stop, most residents of South Acton and Acton Green will still be within 400 metres of a bus stop.

Although the restructured route 440 will no longer serve stops adjacent to Acton Green, the service will continue to serve stops on Chiswick High Road which are within 400 metres of the Health Centre on Dolman Road.

 Passengers will have to walk further at Chiswick Park station to catch a bus if the route 440 changes go ahead.

Some passengers will have a longer walk to access route 440 from Chiswick Park station. However the proposed alignment of route 440 would serve stops on Chiswick High Street that are still within 250-300 metres of Chiswick Park station.

 TfL is making these changes for commercial reasons and not to benefit customers.

The withdrawal of route 27 between Hammersmith and Chiswick Business Park (CBP) will ensure that the appropriate level of bus service capacity is provided to meet demand along Chiswick High Road. The cost savings made in this part of the network will ensure that bus services can be enhanced in those parts of London where it is most needed.

A frequency increase is planned on the Richmond branch of London Overground from 4 to 5 tph (trains per hour) during peak times from May 2019. This would increase delays to buses at Bollo Lane level crossing, which in turn would increase journey times for passengers on route 440 travelling to/from Chiswick Park Station and Chiswick High Road. Rerouting the 440 via CBP will mean buses can avoid delays at the level crossing. The route through CBP is restricted to bus and cycles

29 only meaning there is no congestion through the business park. The reroute will ensure that route 440 can continue to provide a reliable connection to/from Chiswick High Street and maintain the connection between the high street and CBP following the withdrawal of route 27.