Possible changes to bus service 167
December 2016
2 Contents
Executive summary ...... 5 Introduction ...... 5 Summary of issues raised during consultation ...... 5 1. About the proposals ...... 6 1.1 Introduction ...... 6 1.2 Detailed description of proposals for route 167 ...... 6 1.3 Detailed description of proposal for new school route 677 ...... 8 2. About the consultation ...... 10 2.1 Purpose ...... 10 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 10 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 10 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 11 2.5 What we asked ...... 11 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 12 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 12 2.8 Meetings with stakeholders ...... 13 2.9 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 13 3. About the respondents ...... 14 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 14 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 14 3.3 Methods of responding ...... 16 3.4 Postcodes of respondents ...... 16 3.5 Type of respondent ...... 18 3.6 Responses by parents and students ...... 19 3.7 Health and Disability ...... 21 3.8. How often do you use route 167? ...... 22 3.9 How often do you use route 20? ...... 23 3.10 How often do you use route 397? ...... 24 3.11 How often do you use route 549? ...... 25 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 26 4.1 Proposed changes to 167 and length of journey ...... 26
3 4.2 Proposed new school route 677 and length of journey ...... 27 4.3 Issues commonly raised ...... 28 4.4 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 29 4.4.1 Epping Forest District Council/ Loughton Town Council ...... 29 4.4.2 Essex County Council ...... 31 4.4.3 London Borough of Redbridge ...... 31 4.4.4 Schools ...... 32 4.4.5 Other stakeholders ...... 33 4.5 Petition ...... 34 4.6 Comments on the quality of the consultation...... 35 5. Next steps ...... 37 Appendix A: Consultation leaflet ...... 38 Appendix B: Consultation poster at bus stops ...... 47 Appendix C: Petition ...... 48 Appendix D: Detailed comments received on the proposed changes ...... 49 Appendix E: Detailed comments received on the quality of the consultation ...... 54 Appendix F: List of stakeholders consulted ...... 56
4 Executive summary
Introduction This report explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on bus route 167.
Debden and Loughton in Essex are currently linked to North East London by TfL bus routes 20, 167, 397 and 549. Essex County Council provided funding towards the operation of routes 20 and 167, however this stopped in April 16. We developed proposals to restructure route 167 in response to this loss of funding.
The consultation was open for six weeks between 13 June to 22 July 2016. We received 743 responses from members of the public and 15 responses from stakeholders.
Summary of issues raised during consultation Overwhelmingly respondents considered that the 167 bus service was a very popular and useful route. The proposed changes meant for most people they would have a longer, more difficult journey, and having to change buses would be inconvenient.
Respondents were concerned that the frequency of the proposed 677 school service would not be enough.
Crowding was an important issue, both at present and in the future if the proposals were introduced.
The comments received were generally opposed to the proposals.
We received a petition opposing the proposals. The petition was signed by 2,547 people. 1,962 people signed the petition online through the 38 Degree website.
A separate report sets out our response to the main issues raised during this consultation.
5 1. About the proposals
1.1 Introduction
We consulted stakeholders and the public about proposed changes to the 167 bus service. The consultation was open for six weeks from 13 June to 22 July 2016.
Debden and Loughton in Essex are currently linked to north east London by TfL bus routes 20, 167, 397 and 549. Essex County Council provided funding towards the operation of routes 20 and 167, however this stopped in April 2016.
We developed proposals to restructure route 167 in response to this loss of funding.
In summary:
• Route 167 would no longer run between Loughton station and Debden station
• A new route 677 would be introduced providing a limited stop service between Ilford and schools in Debden using double deck buses. This would operate on school days only
• No changes are proposed to route 20, which will continue to serve the section of route between Loughton station and Debden station.
1.2 Detailed description of proposals for route 167 We proposed that route 167 would no longer run between Loughton station and Debden station. Buses would continue to run between Ilford and Loughton every 20 minutes Mondays to Saturdays and every 30 minutes all evenings and Sundays.
6
There are a number of other bus services in the area, shown in the diagram below
7
1.3 Detailed description of proposal for new school route 677 We proposed to introduce a new route 677 for students travelling to and from schools in the Debden area. On schoolday mornings this would stop at all existing bus stops from Ilford to Buckhurst Hill station. After Buckhurst Hill station it would operate on an express basis, stopping only at Loughton station (for Roding Valley High School), Davenant Foundation School, Debden Park High School and Debden station. There would be a return journey in the afternoon to Ilford making the same stops.
Double deck buses would be used on the route. There is a low bridge on Roding Road so the proposed service would follow a different route to the 167 service. There would be one journey from Ilford to Debden in the morning and one from Debden to Ilford in the afternoon.
8
9 2. About the consultation
2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were to:
Raise awareness of the proposals and explain the changes in an accessible format
Provide an opportunity for people to provide feedback about the route changes
Clearly explain the benefits of the proposed changes
Understand any areas of concern for residents and stakeholders and develop mitigating actions
To allow respondents to make suggestions
2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:
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
2.3 Who we consulted We sought the views of people who live near to the route, current users of the service and other potential users. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, schools and colleges, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, and local resident and community groups. Local resident and community groups included: General: Buckhurst Hill Residents’ Society, Debden Tenant Panel, Debden Broadway Panel, Loughton Residents Association, Oakwood Hill Residents Association, Redbridge Council for Voluntary Organisations, Voluntary Action Epping Forest. Epping Forest District Council and Redbridge Council Tenant Participation teams sent information out to local Tenant and Resident Associations. Faith groups: Redbridge Faith Forum, Epping Forest Multi Faith Forum
10 Young people: Epping Forest Youth Council, Little Oaks Children’s Centre, Young people: Schools and colleges: Epping Forest College, University of Essex Loughton Campus, Davenant Foundation School, Debden Park High School, Hereward Primary School, Ilford County High School, King Solomon High School, Roding Valley High School, St John Fisher Primary School, Thomas Willingale School and Nursery, Ursuline Academy Ilford, Valinetines High School, White Bridge Junior School Health & Disability: Clinical Commissioning Groups (Redbridge and West Essex), Epping Local Action Group (Mencap – contacted by Essex CC), Loughton Resource Centre, West Essex MIND The proposals would mean that Pryles Lane would no longer have a bus service. We therefore sent a supply of leaflets to the Forest GP Surgery and Honey Tree Court Extra Care Sheltered Housing scheme. We also emailed and sent a letter to both organisations. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix F and a summary of their responses is given in Section 4.4.
2.4 Dates and duration The consultation was open for six weeks between 13 June to 22 July 2016.
2.5 What we asked The questionnaire asked seven generic questions relating to name, email address, postcode, organisation name (if responding on behalf of a business/stakeholder/organisation), whether the respondent had a health problem or disability which limited their day to day activities, how they had heard about the consultation, and views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked two questions on the quality: to rate on a scale from very good to very poor; and to provide any comments). There were four questions specific to the consultation:
How often do you use the bus routes 167, 20, 397 and 549? Respondents were given a choice of six answers: 5+ days a week, 3 to 4 days a week, 1 to 2 days a week, 1 to 3 times a month, less than once a month, I do not use this route How will the proposed changes affect the length of your journey? Respondents were given a choice of five answers: my journey will be shorter, my journey will be longer, there will be no change to the length of my journey, I do not know what the impact will be, I do not/would not use this route Please let us have any comments about our proposals for route 167, for example how this will affect you and/or your family, or any other suggestions you may have (there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments) If you are a student or a parent of a student at a local school please let us know which one
11 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 17,250 leaflets and 4,345 emails about the consultation which are detailed below. The leaflet mentioned that copies were available in large print, audio or another language through a Freephone number 0343 222 1155. We sent out four copies of the leaflet in large print.
2.7.1 Website The consultation was available on our consultation website
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/167
2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets We produced an 8 page A5 booklet outlining the proposals (Appendix A). We sent this to all residents, businesses and organisations within a 400 metre distance of the current route between Debden and Buckhurst Hill. In total 17,250 leaflets were distributed. We also sent a supply of leaflets to:
Type of Venue venue Libraries Loughton and Debden libraries
GP surgeries Forest Practice, Loughton Surgery, Loughton Health Centre, High Road Surgery, Rectory Lane Clinic Churches Loughton Methodist Church, St Marys Church, Epping Forest Community Church, Saint Michaels Church, St Nicholas Church Other Honey Tree Court, Pryles Lane extra care sheltered scheme Epping Forest District Council – Housing Office South Loughton Town Council Buckhurst Hill Parish Council
2.7.3 Emails to public We sent an email with a link to the online consultation to registered users of the 167 bus route. In total 4,345 emails were sent out.
12 2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders We sent an email to stakeholders with a link to the online consultation page. In total 147 emails were sent out.
2.7.5 Press and media activity We sent tweets out in the first week of the consultation on five occasions with the following text:
Have your say on proposed changes to route 167 between Ilford and Debden and a new school bus service https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/167
2.7.6 On-site advertising Posters highlighting the consultation were placed at bus stops along the route where space was available, see appendix B.
2.8 Meetings with stakeholders We met with Essex County Council at the planning stage of the consultation and to discuss the consultation outcomes. We also liaised with London Borough of Redbridge. We provided advance notice of the consultation start through an email to Davenant Foundation School, Debden Park High School and Roding Valley High School. This was sent a week before the consultation started.
2.9 Analysis of consultation responses Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out in-house. There were two “open” questions (comments about the proposals and the quality of the consultation). A draft coding frame was developed for responses to these questions, which was finalised following review by another member of the team. There was one duplicate response which was deleted.
13
3. About the respondents
This section contains a profile of the responses from the general public.
3.1 Number of respondents
Respondents Total % Public responses 743 98% Stakeholder responses 15 2% Total 758 100%
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation We received 622 responses to this question, of those who responded, the majority, 171 (27 per cent) indicated that they received an email from TfL. 156 (25 per cent) stated that they received a leaflet from TfL, with another 156 (25 per cent) saying they heard about it through social media.
14 How did you hear about this consultation? 200
150
100
50
0 Received Received Other Read Saw it on Not Social an email a leaflet (please about in the TfL Answere media from TfL from TfL specify) the press website d Number of responses 171 156 156 83 33 23 121 % 27% 25% 25% 13% 5% 4% 19%
“Other” responses are shown in the diagram below
"Other" School 5 5 Facebook 10 18 Friend/neighbour
Loughton Residents' Association 2 16 Bus stop notice
Councillor
27 Other forums
15 3.3 Methods of responding
The majority of responses were received online 644 (85 per cent).
Methods of responding 700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Online Email Letter Number of responses 644 84 15 % 87% 11% 2%
3.4 Postcodes of respondents 567 respondents supplied a postcode and the map below shows the distribution of respondents.
16
Most respondents lived in the Debden, Loughton or Buckhurst Hill, with a particular concentration along the section of the 167 route where as part of the proposals the bus would no longer run and where we distributed a leaflet. The map below shows this area zoomed in.
17
3.5 Type of respondent We received 634 responses to this question. Of those who responded, the majority, 615 (83 per cent) indicated they were responding as individuals. 14 (2 per cent) stated that they were responding in their capacity as a representative of a community, resident or voluntary organisation. 5 (1 per cent) indicated that they were responding in their capacity as a business, organisation or school. Some of the responses were found not to be official responses from organisations and for the purposes of analysis we considered 15 responses to be from stakeholders.
18 In what capacity are you responding? 700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Representative Representative of a community, of a business, As an individual resident or Not Answered organisation or voluntary school organisation Number of responses 615 14 5 109 % 83% 2% 1% 15%
3.6 Responses by parents and students We asked if respondents were students of local schools or parents of children at local schools. We received 220 responses to this question. The highest number of responses was from parents of students at Davenant Foundation School 66 (9 per cent). 27 (4 percent) of responses were from parents of students at Debden Park High School. 89 respondents (12 per cent) chose “other” as their answer.
19 Are you a parent or student? 600
500
400
300
200
100
0 A A A paren A paren A paren A t of a stude t of a stude t of a stude stude nt at stude nt at stude nt at Other nt at Rodin nt at Dave nt at Debd (pleas Not Rodin g Dave nant Debd en e Answ g Valley nant Foun en Park specif ered Valley High Foun dation Park High y) High Scho dation Scho High Scho Scho ol Scho ol Scho ol ol ol ol Number of responses 610661627689523 % 1% 1% 9% 2% 4% 1% 12% 70%
The most frequently mentioned comments under “other” included: friends/relative/commuter/parent (36). The breakdown is shown in the table below
Number of Table showing 'other' as indicated in the above graph mentions Friends/relative/commuter/parent 36 Hereward School: Teacher/student/parent of a student 8 King Solomon School: Teacher/student/parent for a student 4 Respondents mentioning Davenant School 9 Student at Bancroft School 1 Trinity Catholic High School: Student/parent 4 Epping Forest College: Students/former teacher 8 Harlow College student 1 Chigwell School 7 Roding Valley School 1 Ilford County School: Parent/student 1 St. John's Fisher 7
20 3.7 Health and Disability
We asked, “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) We received 596 responses to this question. 80 (11 per cent) of respondents stated their activities are limited a little and 43 (6 per cent) indicated their activities are limited a lot. The majority of respondents, 392 (53 per cent) indicated that their day to day activities are not being limited because of a health problem or disability. 81 (11 per cent) stated that they preferred not to say and 147 (20 per cent) did not respond to this question.
Health and Disability 450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Yes, limited Yes, limited Prefer not to Not No a lot a little say Answered Number of responses 43 80 392 81 147 % 6% 11% 53% 11% 20%
21 3.8. How often do you use route 167? 643 people responded to this question. Of the 643, 292 (45 per cent) indicated that they used the service five or more days per week, 133 (21 per cent) used it three to four days a week, while 105 (16 per cent) stated that they used it one to two days a week.
How often do you use route 167? 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Less than I do not use 5+ days a 3 to 4 days 1 to 2 days 1 to 3 times once a this route in week a week a week a month month the area Number of responses 292 133 105 57 35 21 % 45% 21% 16% 9% 5% 3%
22 3.9 How often do you use route 20? 497 people responded to this question. 171 (34 per cent) stated that they used route 20 five or more days a week. 97 (20 per cent) of the respondents said that they used it three to four days a week. 84 people (17 per cent) indicated they used one to two days a week.
How often do you use route 20? 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 I do not Less use 5+ 3 to 4 1 to 2 1 to 3 than this days a days a days a times a once a route in week week week month month the area Number of responses 1719784534943 % 34% 20% 17% 11% 10% 9%
23 3.10 How often do you use route 397? 326 people responded to this question. Nearly half 156 (48 per cent) stated that they did not use this route at all. 64 (20 per cent) indicated that they used it less than once a month, while 37 (11 per cent) said they used it one to three times a month.
How often do you use route 397? 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 I do not 1 to 3 Less 5+ 3 to 4 1 to 2 use times than days a days a days a this a once a week week week route month month in the area Number of responses 22 16 31 37 64 156 % 7% 5% 10% 11% 20% 48%
24 3.11 How often do you use route 549? 300 people responded to this question. 219 (73 per cent) indicated that they did not use this route in the area. 40 (13 per cent) stated that they used the route less than once a month, while 18 (6 per cent) said they used it one to two days a week.
How often do you usebus route 549?
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 I do not 1 to 3 Less 5+ 3 to 4 1 to 2 use times than days a days a days a this a once a week week week route month month in the area number of responses 6 3 18 14 40 219 % 2% 1% 6% 5% 13% 73%
25 4. Summary of all consultation responses
We received 743 responses from members of the public, set out in section 4.1 to 4.3. The 15 responses from stakeholders are included in section 4.4.
4.1 Proposed changes to 167 and length of journey We asked “how will the proposed changes to route 167 affect the length of your journey?: route 167 would no longer run between Loughton and Debden”. 634 people responded to this question. 511 (81 per cent) stated that their journey would be longer, 47 (7 per cent) said that they did not know what the impact would be, while 37 (6 per cent) stated that there would no change to the length of their journey.
How will the proposed changes to 167 affect the length of your journey? 600
500
400
300
200
100
0 There will be I do not I do not no My My know or would change journey journey what the not use to the will be will be impact this length of longer shorter will be route my journey Number of responses 37 511 5 47 34 % 6% 81% 1% 7% 5%
26 4.2 Proposed new school route 677 and length of journey We asked “how will the proposed changes to route 167 affect the length of your journey?: new route 677 providing a limited stop service between Ilford and schools in Debden using double deck buses”. 525 people responded to this question. 286 (54 per cent) indicated that they would not be using this route, while 118 (22 per cent) indicated that their journey would be longer.
New route 677 providing a limited stop service between Ilford and schools in Debden
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 There will be no I do not I do not or My journey My journey change to know what would not will be will be the length the impact use this longer shorter of my will be route journey Number of responses 36 118 8 77 286 % 7% 22% 2% 15% 54%
27 4.3 Issues commonly raised
We asked “please let us have any comments about our proposals for route 167, for example how this will affect you and/or your family, or any suggestions you may have”. The table below shows the most frequently mentioned comments. The full list of comments can be found in Appendix D. A separate report sets out our response to the main issues raised.
Number of Top recurring themes comments
Proposals will mean I will have a longer, more difficult journey/ inconvenient 171
Current route: 167 is a very popular/useful route 94
Leave it as it is/ generally opposed 93
Changing buses is costly/ inconvenient 83
Makes it more difficult to get to work 81
677: One school journey in morning and afternoon is not enough 78
Longer waiting time at bus stops 72
167: Crowding at present 66
20: Proposals will increase crowding 63
Frequency reduction in the area is unacceptable 62
28 4.4 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.
4.4.1 Epping Forest District Council/ Loughton Town Council Loughton Town Council: response by Town Clerk on behalf of the Council
Loughton Town Council does not support the proposals for route 167 and the new route 677. Considered that linking the proposals to Essex County Council’s withdrawal of subsidy is irrelevant as TfL has a duty to promote and provide transport services to, from and within London. Concerned for the loss of connectivity in the area both from North Loughton/Debden into Greater London and also from Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill to Loughton High Road. This loss of connectivity would impact on shopping, leisure, and medical journeys as well as people travelling to work for both London and Essex residents. Highlighted that people from across the area travel to the large medical practice in Pryles Lane which would no longer be on a bus route. Concerned at the impacts on students of the proposals for the 167 and the new 677 service. Highlighted the hardship it would cause for students attending faith schools in Loughton and Redbridge, and students travelling from Loughton to Ilford County High School, King Solomon High School and Chigwell School (all in the direction not to be served by the proposed 677 service). Also highlighted the proposed service would not take into account the number of students travelling from Redbridge to Epping Forest College, or from Redbridge/Chigwell/Buckhurst Hill to Davenant and other Loughton schools. Considered the limited stop service for the 677 north of Buckhurst Hill will not pick up students from a range of schools in the area. Considered the proposed 677 service does not take into account that school closing times vary and the schools stagger their closing times to avoid congestion. Considered the capacity of the route is already too low with 28 seater buses at 20 minute intervals. Suggested that if financial considerations are uppermost, the route should be offered on a nonfranchised basis to a commercial operator issued with a London Service Permit, who would provide an equivalent service along the whole route. Cllr Rose Brookes Cllr Brookes represents Loughton Roding on Epping Forest District Council and Loughton Town Council. Cllr Brookes does not support the proposals for route 167 and the new route 677. Stated that many of her constituents have expressed serious concerns about the proposed changes. Roding ward is a distinct community in Loughton, lying to the east of the railway line and compared with other wards in Loughton less well served by buses. The 167 is very important for many residents and provides connections not only with Ilford, but with the main parts of Loughton and Debden.
29 Considered that the current 167 service is frequent and reliable. Concerned about the impact on students travelling to schools in Debden and in Redbridge, people travelling and for older people. Stated that there are only a few shops in Roding ward therefore older people often depend on a visit to Morrisons in Loughton High Road or Iceland in Debden Broadway (both of which she considers are less expensive than Sainsburys which is the major supermarket where the proposed supermarket would end). Considered that Roding ward is not served by a doctor’s surgery so many people register with surgeries just off Loughton High Road or Pryles Lane, and the proposals would make journeys more difficult for people particularly people with mobility problems who may have to change buses. Highlighted that Loughton station (an alternative route to Debden) has stairs and is less accessible to anyone with mobility problems, with a pushchair or just with shopping. Considered the proposed new 677 school route running once in the morning and a return journey in the afternoon is inadequate, not taking into account early morning and after school activities, or students from Redbridge attending Epping Forest College. Considered the proposals will add to congestion and pollution at a time when we should be encouraging public transport. Suggested that if financial considerations are uppermost, the route should be offered on a nonfranchised basis to a commercial operator issued with a London Service Permit, who would provide an equivalent service along the whole route. Considered it is part of TFL's duty to provide safe, integrated and efficient transport services to and from London.
Cllr Stephen Murray Cllr Murray does not support the proposals. Considered the proposals will have a major impact in Loughton and would represent a major deterioration in the bus routes serving the area.
Cllr Stephen Neville Cllr Murray does not support the proposals. Considered the proposals will make it harder for residents to get to Loughton High Road, Davenant School, and Debden generally. Highlighted the impacts in particular on those who have mobility issues and the elderly. Considered public transport services should be increased and access improved.
Cllr Caroline Pond Cllr Caroline Pond does not support the proposals.
30 Stated similar concerns about the impacts of the proposals as expressed by Loughton Town Council. Highlighted problems of overcrowding on route 20 if the proposals were to go ahead especially at school times.
Cllr Chris Pond Cllr Chris Pond does not support the proposals. Stated similar concerns about the impacts of the proposals as expressed by Loughton Town Council. Highlighted problems of overcrowding on route 20 if the proposals were to go ahead especially at school times.
Cllr David Wixley Cllr Wixley does not support the proposals. Fully supported the response to the consultation from Loughton Town Council. Highlighted the impact on Roding Ward residents who use the service to shop in Loughton High Road as the proposed service would stop at Loughton Station, and for some people travelling on to the relatively short distance to the High Road would involve the inconvenience of changing buses. Considered the proposed school bus route 677 as inadequate, not taking into account children leaving school at different times and after school activities.
4.4.2 Essex County Council Essex County Council provided the following statement after the close of the consultation “Essex County Council understands the need to review the service in the light of changes to funding, including withdrawal of funding from ECC and accept that some changes to TfL’s service provision will occur. However, as the consultation has recognised, this is an important and well supported route and ECC would therefore ask TfL to consider actively encouraging alternative methods of service provision, such as encouraging commercial operation with a permit for operation In London. Whilst passenger benefits might be lost, it could be on balance passengers wished to preserve the service in this way. Essex County Council would be happy to co- operate with TfL to this end”.
4.4.3 London Borough of Redbridge The Council supports the proposed changes to route 167 and proposed new school route 677.
31 Acknowledged that customers will be able to continue to make journeys by transferring between buses at no additional cost with a child Zip-Oyster or with an adult “Hopper” fare. However also considered that changing routes could involve significant delays to customers and inconvenience particularly in winter when there is bad weather and it is dark from mid afternoon. Requested that school travel is monitored / reviewed, as far as is practicable, with respect to pre or post school activity. Schools now have breakfast clubs and there are many after school activities. Also requested that consideration is given to an earlier / later school journey if a certain level of demand is reached. Highlighted the need to publicise the new school journey arrangements when they come into place, providing as much advance notice as possible of the changes to minimise any disruption during the first few days. Cllr Ross Hatfull (Valentines Ward) expressed disappointment at the proposed changes and considered it is vital that there is a direct and frequent bus service that connects Redbridge to the rest of Essex including Loughton. He considered services should remain unchanged and that buses should continue to run direct from Ilford to Loughton on route 167 (note under the proposals the service would continue to run from Ilford to Loughton).
4.4.4 Schools Roding Valley High School The School does not support the proposals. Concerned about the potential impact on students from the changes. A large number of students stated that it will make it harder for them to get to and from school. Stated that this also applies to a number of staff at the school who use the bus to get to work.
Davenant Foundation School The School does not support the proposals. Understood the rationale for the proposals which follow the loss of funding by Essex County Council. However, considered the reduction in service from/ to Loughton Station will seriously affect students at Davenant as well as young people attending Debden Park High School and Epping Forest College.
Concerned about the new school route 677. They considered one bus will not provide sufficient capacity for the total number of students who wish to use the service. Considered this will lead to overcrowding of the bus which will lead to poor behaviour and strained relationships between students, bus drivers and members of the public. Do not consider the timing of these buses will suit the three educational institutions, each of which keep different timings (including, on some occasions, late starts and early finishes). Consider students will be deterred from staying for extra- curricular activities if they know there will be a reduced bus service to get home.
32
Debden Park High School The School does not support the proposals. Concerned that the proposals would adversely affect students attending their new sixth form and pupils that attend after school classes as they will not fit into the proposed schedule for the 677 service. Stated sixth form students may have lessons that start at different times and a significant number of pupils attend after school revision/ clubs which are likely to finish after the bus has departed. Highlighted that on Tuesdays the school closes at 14.30 meaning that pupils would not be able to get home as easily as under the current service. 4.4.5 Other stakeholders
Buckhurst Hill Residents’ Society The Committee of the Society does not support the proposals. Considered many Buckhurst Hill residents and school children will be affected by these changes. Considered the proposals will mean: longer journey times with waiting for connecting buses, inconvenience with added difficulties for the elderly and less mobile people. Considered there will be a lack of alternative transport for passengers wanting stops between Loughton Station to Debden if there are problems with the route 20 service or on the Central line. Concerned if there was a delay of any bus between Buckhurst Hill/ Loughton/ Debden this could invalidate the Hopper Fare. Considered there could be greater use of local taxis and more use of cars adding to local pollution in the area.
Did not consider the proposed 677 school service to be a sensible alternative to the current service. Highlighted possible longer journeys for example if a child misses a bus, has a medical appointment or attends an after school club – they would have to wait for a route 20 service to Loughton Station followed by a wait for a 167 (or the reverse). Concerned that this sets a precedent for further cuts to bus routes. Requested that the proposals do not go ahead and for TfL to encourage Essex County Council to reconsider its cut in funding.
Loughton Voluntary Care Network A representative from the Network does not support the proposals Considered the 167 service to be a valued and essential service. Stated the proposal to terminate the 167 bus at Loughton Station would have a detrimental impact on the elderly and disabled, non-car users, and other groups totally dependent on public transport who rely on and use the different facilities and services provided in both areas and beyond.
33 Highlighted that Loughton High Street area includes GP services, supermarkets, opticians, churches and other vital facilities. Debden is a shopping destination of choice for many in Loughton. Highlighted there is currently a new retail park in planning development in the Debden area to which non car users and other groups in Loughton would have difficulty of access without a direct 167 bus service to/from Debden. Stated direct access to the Lidl’s branch in Fencepiece Road would be denied to those user groups living in Debden and in Central Loughton. Stated many also use the extensive facilities offered in Ilford which is the biggest retail area currently accessible by a direct 167 bus service from central Loughton and Debden. Noted the 542 and 542A (circular bus) cover the route from Roding Road via the High Road, however they considered this to be an unreliable service which generally does not run to time and is only one bus an hour.
Restore Community Church A representative from the Church does not support the proposals Considered that Debden is the poorer end of Loughton and least well serviced area by busses locally. Stated it is unfair to reduce the service to this area and highlighted impacts on the elderly and children.
4.5 Petition We received a petition opposing the proposals (see appendix C). The petition was signed by 2,547 people. 1,962 people signed the petition online through the 38 Degree website: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-167-bus-route The petition was created by H Chow. The number of signatures on the petition has not been included in our total of responses received. The petition has been included in the analysis of the consultation and the issues raised in it are answered in a separate report. We only include the number of completed questionnaires received in our final analysed figures.
34 4.6 Comments on the quality of the consultation We asked, “what do you think about the quality of this consultation?” There were two parts to this question. Respondents could indicate what they thought about the quality of this consultation by choosing from pre-set answers (see chart below). They were also able to provide comments in a free text box regarding the proposals. We received 626 responses to this question, of those, 105 (14 per cent) indicated that they thought the consultation was very good and 189 (25 per cent) said that it was good. 241 (32 per cent) stated that they found it to be acceptable. 42 (6 per cent) stated that the consultation was very poor with 49 (7 per cent) considering it poor. 117 did not respond to this question.
Quality of this consultation
Not Answered, 117, 16% Very good, 105, 14% Very Very good poor, Good 42, 6% Acceptable
Poor, 49, 7% Poor Good, 189, 25% Very poor Not Answered
Acceptable, 241, 32%
35 The most common themes are shown below; the full list of comments can be found in Appendix E.
Top themes
Not well publicised/ only found out from Facebook 26
Lack of detailed information 16
Need for printed material for people without internet access/elderly population 14
Take people's views into account 14
Quality of questions could be better 14
Consultation should be better/ widely publicised 13
Pleased to have been consulted 11
36
5. Next steps
A separate report sets out our response to the main issues raised during this consultation.
We will inform respondents of our decision when we publish these reports.
37
Appendix A: Consultation leaflet
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Appendix B: Consultation poster at bus stops
47 Appendix C: Petition
We received a petition opposing the proposals. The petition was signed by 2,547 people. 1,962 people signed the petition online through the 38 Degree website: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-167-bus-route The petition was created by H Chow. The text of the petition is set out below
Keep the current 167 bus route between Debden and Ilford
The Transport for London (TfL) proposal to cut the 167 bus route so that it only runs between Ilford to Loughton station will significantly impact people who live in Debden or who need to get to Debden. In particular, people who don’t have cars and who depend on public transport such as school children, elderly people, people with mobility problems and parents with young children.
The carer for my disabled son relies on the 167 bus route to travel to my house in Debden twice a week to provide me with much-needed respite care. This proposal will make it much harder and longer for her to get to and from my house.
The proposed new route 677 will have just one bus in the morning and one in the afternoon and will follow the existing route of the 167 until Loughton and will then become a shuttle service from Loughton to Debden to cover the secondary schools. This plan is flawed and inadequate.
My son goes to one of the local Debden schools and with only one bus he will struggle to get on the bus along with all the other students from Davenant Foundation School, Roding Valley High School and Debden Park High School. If he can’t squeeze onto the one bus or has after-school activities or if he misses the bus then he will be left with little choice for transportation.
This proposal is not only unfair as it impacts hardest on those who are most in need of good public transport. But it is also short-sighted as: - The Central Line is already under heavy pressure and cutting the 167 will push even more people to use an already overcrowded tube line. - There are a number of proposed residential and commercial developments in the Debden area, this will increase demand for transport not reduce it.
One of TfL’s mottos is ‘Every Journey Matters’ and we want to say that the 167 bus route matters! It is extremely valued and well used, serving all members of the community and we appeal to you to scrap your proposals and let us keep the existing 167 route.
48 Appendix D: Detailed comments received on the proposed changes
This appendix provides a detailed breakdown of responses to the question “Please let us have any comments about our proposals for route 167, for example how this will affect you and/or your family, or any suggestions you may have”. Respondents were able to provide comments in a free text box regarding the proposals and these have been analysed and presented below.
Q3 - Comments about the proposal
Current issues
167: Crowding at present 66
167: Unreliable/often terminates before getting to destination 15
20: Often times terminates at Loughton 14
20: Crowding at present 55
20: Reliability issues with 20 at present - this will make it worse 30
Driver behaviour 1
Current route: 167 is a very popular/useful route 94
Current route: Good alternative for people when the Central Line is down 9
Comments against the proposal - Bus specific
Route 167
167: Needed as Loughton is not on the night tube plan 1
167: This route was a factor in choice of local schools 3
20: Proposals will increase crowding 63
167: Residents and families would be negatively affected/inconvenienced 39
Frequency reduction in the area is unacceptable 62
Route 677
677: Should not be implemented 1
677: Proposed service not useful for sixth form students with variable school hours 7
677: Service not useful to students with extra-curricular activities/after school clubs 48
49 677: One school journey in morning and afternoon is not enough 78
677: Overcrowding on 677 36
677: New school route is not a proper substitute for current 167 route 44
General comments not in favour of the scheme
Further information required: e.g. statistics/analysis/more information about the new route 7
Only bus that goes up Pyrles Lane Doctor's surgery 22
People that live in Loughton and Buckhurst Hill are not eligible for the freedom pass 2
Socialising/nights out/visiting family will be more difficult 37
Debden area will be cut off/underserved 43
People living in Chigwell will be cut off and underserved 6
Some local stations have no step-free access so people with mobility issues will be disadvantaged 4
Unfair on Pyrles Lane residents who will no longer have this service 8
Sceptical of TfL's motives for these changes 7
This will discourage use of public transport 18
Uncontrolled street parking will become worse 5
Leave it as it is/generally opposed 93
Would have to use non TfL buses which are inferior to TfL services 2
Changes will lead to crowding on the central line 1
Children with an Essex address won't be able to get a zip card so will have to pay more 2
Proposal fails to take into account new housing developments taking place in the area 10
Impact on School children/young people
Impact on young people/students in Epping Forest district /Epping Forest College 18
Concern about student behaviour on the bus 10
General negative impact on school children 53
Longer wait at bus stop/more difficult journey for children 40
Difficulty for students if they miss the proposed service to schools 9
50 Local schools have staggered finishing times making the one journey unfeasible 10
No provision for students to get from Debden / Loughton who attend schools in Barkingside Redbridge 7
Safety concern: children walking /waiting longer especially in adverse weather 24
3 local schools have similar starting/finishing time so this will lead to congestion 7
Impact on commuters/local area/residents
Impact on local businesses as shoppers will look to shop elsewhere 18
Residents/families will be negatively affected/inconvenienced by withdrawal of 167 39
Proposal favours school children over tax payers 24
Longer/more difficulty journey for people with young children/pushchairs due to reduced service/changing buses 36
Journey longer & difficult/longer wait/limited movement for disabled people/wheelchair users/people with limited mobility 31
Commute will be affected 9
Increased congestion/pollution from more people having to drive due to reduced service 46
Concerned about another double decker causing vibration properties along Pyrles Lane/Chester Road/Hilly fields 2
Longer journey to Debden/Loughton stations 44
Longer walks home 59
Makes it more difficult to get to work 81
No alternative bus route if anything happens to route 20 11
Inconvenience to the elderly: longer wait/ more difficult journey/changing buses 50
Inconvenience to the large elderly population living in Debden who rely on 167 to get about/go shopping etc. 56
Effect on the elderly who are unable to drive or walk too far 23
Poor weekend service 10
Safety concern: lone female commuters waiting long at stops 9
Bus services are already poor in the area/changes will lead to isolation & exclusion 27
Longer waiting time at bus stops 72
51 Longer more difficult journey/inconvenient 171
Socialising/nights out/visiting family will be more difficult 37
Funding/cost related comments
Disappointed that Essex County Council is withdrawing funding 12
Cost savings not justifiable 3
Passengers will be forced to get on the trains which are too expensive 19
Ticket prices are too expensive to have poor bus service 9
Changing buses costly/ inconvenient 83
Passengers will be forced to use cabs/drive to the stations 20
Comments in favour of the proposal
One Hour Hopper fare 4
167: Pleased that Monday to Sunday service will be retained 1
677: Introduction of this route is a good idea 12
Generally supportive 18
Improved reliability if school children get their own bus 10
Will minimise empty running/save money 1
Suggestions: Bus specific
167
167: Decrease frequency instead 18
167: Increase frequency 15
167: Redirect 167 to other various destinations not on the proposal 10
167: Reroute to Trapps Hill 4
167: Extend to High Road Loughton 10
167: Terminate at Loughton Leisure Centre 3
167: Curtail route at Barkingside/Loughton 2
167: Terminate route at Homebase 2
167: Run route from Rectory Lane to Debden for quicker route 4
52 167: Introduce Double Deckers to the route and swap route with 549 2
Redirect funding earmarked for 677 to 167 instead 2
677
677: Increase frequency 3
677: Put a new stop at Homebase 4
677: Redirect to a different route/destination/stop 6
20
20 & 167: Stagger the timetables for more spacing 24
20: Increase frequency 32
20: Get rid of route 20 instead/no need for a double decker 5
549
549: run it via 167 route 2
549: Stop this route instead 2
397
397: Extend to take in Davenant and Debden Park schools in the afternoon
1
Suggestion: General
Monitor traffic levels on the affected streets after the changes & review as appropriate 1
Need for bus arrival indicator information at stops 2
Comments on other routes not in the scope of this consultation 7
Save money by not giving children free passes/freedom passes for retirees only 3
Charge additional fare to cover loss of funding from Essex CC 4
Encourage cycling by installing cycle lanes in Debden area 1
Reduce the cost of season ticket to match the reduction in transport services 4
TfL should be doing much more to end diesel pollution from buses 1
53 Appendix E: Detailed comments received on the quality of the consultation
This appendix provides a detailed breakdown of comments in response to the question “what do you think about the quality of this consultation?”
Q12. Comments on the quality of this consultation
Further information required
Details on the single journey on 677/fares 4
Number of school children that use this route 7
Publish results of the consultation 1
Negative comments
Not well publicised/only found out from Facebook 26
Believe that a decision has already been made by TfL/tick box exercise 11
Consultation poor with only one option provided for debate 5
Lack of detailed information 16
Maps unclear/confusing 6
Missing questions on: Increased congestion/longer waiting times/restriction to accessing shops 1
No economic or environmental impact analysis 7
Previously informed that 167 & 20 would continue as normal for another year (i.e. into 2017) 3
Similar blue colours on printed maps confusing 2
Unclear/confusing information 1
Positive comments
Good maps 1
Helpful & informative information 5
Pleased to have been consulted 11
Website clear/helpful 1
Suggestions
More options should have been provided 1
54 Take people's views into account 14
Further consultation required 2
Print material for people without internet access/elderly population 14
Provide timelines for when proposals are likely to be in effect 1
Should have made it clear whether 677 is open to everyone 6
Types of respondents options should include: wheelchair users/people with buggies 1
Consultation should be better/ widely publicised 13
Quality of questions could be better 14
55 Appendix F: List of stakeholders consulted
London TravelWatch
Elected members
Caroline Pidgeon AM - Chair of Transport Committee AM - Havering & Redbridge & Deputy Chair of Transport Keith Prince Committee Eleanor Laing MP Epping Forest Mike Gapes MP Ilford South Wes Streeting MP Ilford North Patrick McLoughlin MP Secretary of State for Transport MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department Claire Perry of Transport
Local authorities London Borough of Redbridge Essex County Council Epping Forest District Council Loughton Town Council Buckhurst Hill Parish Council
Local councillors
Essex County Council officers arranged for information to be distributed to Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Councillors from affected areas.
John Howard Debbie Kaur-Thiara Aldborough Wes Streeting Ashley Kissin Karen Packer Barkingside Keith Prince Helen Coomb Redbridge Zulfiqar Hussain Clementswood Muhammed Javed Mushtag Ahmed Mahboob Chaudhary Cranbrook Varinder Singhbola Brian Lambert Joyce Ryan Fairlop Tom Sharpe
56 David Bromiley Jeevah Haran Fulwell Nicholas Hayes Khayer Chowdhury Ross Hatfull Valentines Farah Hussain
Police & Health Authorities Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust Essex Fire and Rescue Service Essex Police London Ambulance Service London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Metropolitan Police Redbridge CCG West Essex CCG GP Surgeries Forest Practice High Road Surgery Loughton Health Centre Loughton Surgery Rectory Lane Clinic
Schools and colleges Davenant Foundation School Debden Park High School Epping Forest College Hereward Primary School Ilford County High School King Solomon High School Roding Valley High School St John Fisher Primary School Thomas Willingale School and Nursery University of Essex Loughton Campus Ursuline Academy Ilford Valentines High School White Bridge Junior School
Local interest and resident groups
LB Redbridge and Epping Forest District Councils Tenant Participation teams sent a link to the consultation to all Resident Associations
57 Buckhurst Hill Residents' Society Debden Broadway Partnership Debden House Debden Tenant Panel Epping Forest Multi Faith Forum Epping Forest Youth Council Epping Local Action Group Honey Court House, Pryles Lane Little Oaks Children's Centre Loughton Residents Association Loughton Resource Centre Oakwood Hill Residents Association Redbridge Council for Voluntary Organisations Redbridge Faith Forum University of Essex Loughton Campus Voluntary Action Epping Forest West Essex MIND
Churches Epping Forest Community Church Loughton Methodist Church Saint Michael's Church St Marys Church St Nicholas Church
Transport Groups
AA Motoring Trust Better Transport British Motorcyclists Federation Campaign for Better Transport Confederation of Passenger transport CTC, the national cycling charity Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee EDF Energy Freight Transport Association Green Flag Group Licenced Taxi Drivers Association London Cab drivers Club London Cycling Campaign (Redbridge) London Omnibus Traction Society London Suburban Taxi-drivers' Coalition
58
Other Stakeholders
Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Age Concern Alzheimer's Society Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Association of British Drivers BT Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK EDF GLA Strategy Access Panel members GMB Union Greater London Forum for the Elderly Guide Dogs for the Blind ICE -London Institute of Civil Engineers -London Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Living Streets London Councils London Older People's Strategy Group Metropolitan Police Service MIND National Children's Bureau National Grid RMT Union RNIB Road Haulage Association Royal Mail Royal Mail ParcelForce Sense Sixty Plus Stroke Association Sustrans Thames Water The British Dyslexia Association Unions Together UNITE Union
59