aS-

Consultation on possible changes to bus route W11

Consultation Report September 2016

Consultation on possible changes to bus route W11 Consultation Report

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 The consultation ...... 1 3 Responses from members of the public ...... 3 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ...... 8 Appendices Appendix A - Copy of the CRM email ...... 9 Appendix B – Copy of Consultation Letter ...... 10 Appendix C – Stop notice ...... 12 Appendix E – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 14

1 Introduction

We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about proposed changes to bus route W11. The consultation took place between 14 June and 15 August 2016.

Between May 2012 and December 2014 Palmerston Road railway bridge in Walthamstow was closed for maintenance work. As a result, route W11 was put on temporary diversion via Forest Road, Hoe Street and Selborne Road to Walthamstow Central. Route W15 was also temporarily re-routed via Forest Road, Blackhorse Road and South Grove.

Once the works were completed both routes returned to their normal line of route along Palmerston Road. However, it was noted that the Selbourne Road diversion increased usage on the W15 while the diversion was in place. Further, substantial housing development is scheduled for the Blackhorse Road area. It is expected that up to 2,500 units will be built in total, along with other area amenities – including additional local retail and a primary school.

Description of the proposals Route W11 runs between Chingford Hall Estate and Walthamstow Central Station with buses every 10 mins Monday to Saturday daytimes, and 15 minutes on Sundays. During the evenings it runs 15 minutes Mondays to Saturdays and half hour on Sundays.

We proposed to re-route the W11 via Forest Road, Blackhorse Road and South Grove. This would provide new links to the Victoria Line and Overground services at Blackhorse Road station. It would also help provide additional capacity for new developments on Blackhorse Road and Selborne Road. We are also proposing increasing the Sunday evening frequencies of the W11 from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes.

Under these proposals the W11 would no longer service Palmerston Road; however, the W15 would continue to cover this road. The terminus of the W11 would not change.

This report explains the background to the proposal, the consultation and summarises the responses. It will contribute to the decision on whether to go ahead with this proposed change or not.

2 The consultation

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

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:  We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned  We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation 1

 We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation.

2.1 Consultation objectives The objectives of the consultation were:  To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition for the change  To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions.

2.2 Who we consulted The consultation intended to seek the views of people who use the bus routes involved and those who might potentially use the service. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix E and a summary of their responses is given in Section 4.

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online. The dedicated webpage explained the background to the proposal. We invited people to respond by answering a number of questions and leaving comments. We raised awareness of the consultation by sending an email to approximately 2,000 registered Oyster Card holders who have used route W11, key stakeholders across London, and via consultation letter detailing the plan to residents within a 400-metre radius of the main developments outlined in the proposals. Copies of consultation materials are shown in Appendix A.

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond via our freepost address (FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS), by emailing [email protected] or by accessing the online consultation where they could let us know their views.

There were four closed questions (questions 1-4), and one open question (question 5) about the proposal.

The following questions specifically asked respondents about the scheme:

- Question 1: Do you currently use the route W11? - Question 2: How often do you use route W11? - Question 3: Do you support the proposals for route W11? - Question 4: Would you use the proposed changes to route W11 should they be implemented? - Question 5: Do you have any further comments about proposed changes to route W11? 2

3 Responses from members of the public

We received 335 written responses from members of the public and stakeholders.

Response type 350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Online Email Post Number of responses 312 17 6 % of responses 93% 5% 2%

In the consultation we asked eleven questions in total (six general and five specific). Of the general questions we asked respondents for their name, email address, post code, and if they were responding on behalf of an organisation. We also asked respondents how they had heard about the consultation.

How did you hear about this consultation? 250

200

150

100

50

0 Received Received Read Saw it on Other Not Social an email a letter about in the TfL (please Answere media from TfL from TfL the press website specify) d Number of responses 93 75 3 19 74 30 41 % of responses 28% 22% 1% 6% 22% 9% 12%

3

Do you currently use route W11? 250

200

150

100

50

0 Yes No Not Answered Number of respondents 246 66 23 % of respondents 73% 20% 7%

How often do you use route W11? 250

200

150

100

50

0 2-3 times Once a 1-2 times Not Daily Rarely Never a week week a month Answered Number of respondents 73 84 23 36 53 37 29 % of respondents 22% 25% 7% 11% 16% 11% 9%

4

Do you support our proposals for route W11? 250

200

150

100

50

0 No Not Yes Partially Not sure No opinion Answered Number of respondents 198 29 7 1 98 2 % of respondents 59% 9% 2% 0% 29% 1%

Would you use the changes to route W11? 250

200

150

100

50

0 Yes No Not sure Not Answered Number of respondents 202 79 30 24 % of respondents 60% 24% 9% 7%

5

Question 5: Do you have any further comments about proposed changes to route W11?

We asked people to elaborate on their previous answer by asking “Do you have any comments?”

Individual responses for question 5 have been coded to one or many codes as appropriate. The code frames include several overall themes and, within these, specific comments.

There were 10 key themes raised from question 5, of which 3 (in bold) could be further expanded upon. The table below indicates these issues. A total of 45 per cent (147) respondents expanded on their comments in this section.

Respondents tended to marginally suggest alternative routes above any other comment (54), which is in reference to the possibility of increased duration of route times if the W11 heads via Blackhorse Road.

Number of Main issues with W11 proposals comments alternative route possible 54 journey times will be extended 53 proposals will remove an essential route 52 general frequency increase needed 38 congestion 28 overcrowding 27 other comments 23 new route necessary to fill capacity issues 19 proposals are redundant 15 additional route extensions are also necessary 10 frequency increase is unnecessary 4

There were 54 comments in which the respondents suggested alternative routes. These comments were extremely varied, though did result in some coherence of theme. The route cited as the most probable alternative to the W11 was the W15 (20). These are listed in decreasing order in the table overleaf.

6

Number of Alternative routes/route changes to proposals comments W15 20 Alter route 158 instead 7 Alter route 230 instead 5 Redevelop/reroute buses via billet roundabout 4 Reroute via Mission Grove 3 Alternate stops on Blackhorse Road with W12 2 Return W11 to temporary routing via Hoe Street 2 Alter route 192 instead 1 Alter route 212 instead 1 Alter route 215 instead 1 Alter route 257 instead 1 Alter route 357 instead 1 Alter route 393 instead 1 Alter route 41 instead 1 Alter route 76 instead 1 Alter route W19 instead 1 Divert via South County Road 1 Split W11 into two routes to cover original catchment 1

20 respondents also cited other concerns that did not fit into larger themes detailed in other sections. These are listed in the table below.

Number of Other comments on these proposals comments Bus stops instead of Hall/Ride at Priory Ct. 3 Loss of W11 leads to unsafe situation at night for residents 2 Negative comments on Walthamstow mini-Holland 2 Service is not consistent/reliable 2 W11 should be double-decker 2 Addition of full-time bus/cycle lanes is necessary 1 Comprehensive area transport plan is needed 1 Hybrid buses 1 Local bus information board needed at Blackhorse Road 1 Negative impact on local businesses 1 Scheduling with other buses using this route needs to be consistent 1 Service should run later/be 24-hour 1 Sufficient lighting needed in alleyways 1 timetable for changes is too short 1

Ten respondents stated that other route changes were also necessary in the area, this aside from the current proposals. These are listed in the table overleaf.

7

Number of Additional route extension suggested comments Extend 69 to Tottenham Hale 4 Extend 192 via Forest road to Walthamstow Central 1 Extend 257 to Tottenham Hale 1 Extend 41 to Walthamstow Central 1 Extend 76 to Walthamstow Central 1 Extend W19 to Leabridge station 1 Frequency increase or 24-hour service on 158 1

The majority of responses were generally in support of our proposals (59%), with 9% in partial support. Many of these individuals made additional, positive comments in support of these proposals. These fell into two categories, general comments complementary of the scheme (52) and those that focused on increased capacity along the local network as a result of proposed changes (80).

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

We received three responses from stakeholders identified by Question 9 (If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group). These responses are below; any questions not included in these responses were not addressed by the organisation.

London Travelwatch The organisation was happy with the content and layout of the consultation. Mention was made of the usefulness of extension between the Blackhorse Road and Walthamstow stations.

Ahmadiyya Muslim Association Waltham Forest The group suggested that the previous reroute of the W11 via Hoe Street was more useful to residents. They also suggested an overall capacity increase for the area – especially for links between Enfield and Walthamstow. An increase in the frequency of route 158 was provided as example.

Save our Buses The group had concerns with regard to extended journey times on the W11 after the proposals were implemented. They also pointed out the new service should be under the umbrella of a regional service improvement scheme of much wider scope, inclusive of new services to the surrounding area.

8

Appendix A - Copy of the CRM email

Are our emails displaying well on your device? If not, allow images or view online

Home Plan journey Status update Bus information

Dear Stakeholder

We would like your views on proposed changes to bus route W11, which runs between Chingford Hall Estate and Walthamstow Central Tube station.

The changes include altering the route, which would provide additional capacity in the Blackhorse Road and

Highams Hill area and improve links to Blackhorse Road station.

For full details and to share your views, please click here

This consultation will run until 15 August..

Yours sincerely

Peter Bradley Head of Consultation

These are our consultation customer service updates. To unsubscribe, please click here

Email sign up Social Media Fares & Payments Maps

Copyright in the contents of this email and its attachments belongs to Transport for London. Any unauthorised usage will infringe that copyright. © Transport for London

Click here to report this email as SPAM.

9

Appendix B – Copy of Consultation Letter

10

11

Appendix C – Stop notice

12

Appendix D – Map of letter drop

13

Appendix E – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Stakeholders All Councillors London Borough of Waltham Forest Caroline Pidgeon Greater London Assembly Gareth Bacon AM Greater London Assembly Nicky Gavron AM Greater London Assembly Shaun Bailey Greater London Assembly Kemi Badenoch Greater London Assembly Sian Berry Greater London Assembly David Kurten Greater London Assembly Caroline Russell Greater London Assembly Peter Whittle Greater London Assembly Andrew Boff Greater London Assembly Jennette Arnold AM Greater London Assembly Tom Copley Greater London Assembly Joanne McCartney Greater London Assembly Fiona Twycross Greater London Assembly Iain Duncan Smith MP, Chingford and Woodford Green John Cryer MP, Leyton and Wanstead Stella Creasy MP, Walthamstow

Local Authorities London Borough of Waltham Forest

Police, Fire & Health Authorities Metropolitan Police London Ambulance Service London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Care Commissioning Group (CCG) Brent CCG NHS Central London CCG Lewisham CCG Central London (Westminster) King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Transport Groups AA Motoring Trust Association of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Operators Brent Safer Transport Team British Motorcyclists Federation

14

Campaign for Better Transport Campaign for Passenger Transport CTC, The national cycling charity Department for Transport (DfT) Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Freight Transport Association Green Flag Group Institute of Advanced Motorists Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association Paddington Residents Active Concern on Transport RAC Foundation for Motoring Road Haulage Association Transport Focus Transport for All

Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Age Concern London Age UK Alzheimer’s Society Angel AIM Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance BT Camden Town Unlimited Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Disability Alliance Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee EDF Energy Greater London Forum for the Elderly Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Independent Disability Advisory Groups InMidtown BID Irwin Mitchell Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Living Streets London Cycling Campaign 15

London Older People's Strategy Group Marylebone Association MENCAP MIND National Children’s Bureau National Grid Northbank BID Paddington BID Park Royal Partnership Pimlico FREDA Port of London Authority RADAR London Access Forum Residents Society for Mayfair and St. James RNIB Royal Mail Royal Parks Scope Sense Sixty Plus Stroke Association Sustrans Thames Water The British Dyslexia Association

16

17