Consultation on Possible Changes to Bus Route 159

Consultation on possible changes to bus route 159

Consultation Report February 2014

Consultation on possible changes to bus route 159 Consultation Report

Contents

1 Introduction...... 2 2 The consultation...... 2 3 Responses from members of the public...... 4 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders...... 6

Appendices Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted...... 10 Appendix B – List of questions asked...... 11 Appendix C - Copy of consultation notice displayed at bus stops...... 12

1 Introduction

We consulted stakeholders about our proposals to improve the reliability of route 159. We proposed a change to the central London terminus. Buses would run between Streatham and Marble Arch and no longer serve Paddington or Paddington Basin. The consultation took place between 13 November and 13 December 2013.

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

The impact of roadworks and heavy traffic means the route does not run as reliably as we would like. Quite often some journeys are cut short of their final destination to prevent long gaps in service on busier parts of the route. There has also been a reduction in bus travel between Paddington and Marble Arch in recent years.

The stop in Paddington Basin (in North Wharf Road) is not served by any other route. However it is relatively poorly used with about 160 passengers boarding or alighting each weekday. Since the introduction of a bus service here other transport options have improved, including the new entrance to Paddington (Hammersmith & City) Station.

Stops on Bishop’s Bridge Road would continue to be served by routes 46 and 332. Stops at Paddington in Praed Street will continue to be served by a wide range of routes. Routes 7 and 23 would continue to provide a 24-hour service between the West End and Paddington. Together they offer enough space for all passengers going to or from Paddington.

Our proposal would help improve the service for 28,000 passengers per weekday using route 159 between Marble Arch and Streatham. The service would continue to run to the same frequencies as now. Buses run every five to six minutes Monday to Saturday, every twelve minutes on Sundays and all evenings, and every 20 minutes through the night.

2 The consultation

The consultation was designed to enable us to understand opinion about the proposed change to route 159 and help inform our final decision making.

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  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 easy to understand 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 was open to the public. We have also sought the views of relevant stakeholders such as 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 A. Their responses are shown in Section 4.

To allow us to better understand the views of key local stakeholders and to raise awareness of the consultation, we attended a meeting on 4 November 2013. We met key representatives of the local community and an officer from City of Westminster.

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 two questions and leaving comments. We raised awareness of the consultation by sending an email to registered Oyster Card holders, who have used route 159 and to key stakeholders. We also put up posters at bus stops served by the route. A copy of the questions asked and the consultation material is available in appendix B.

2.4 General response

There were 619 responses in total. Of these, 614 were from members of the public and five from stakeholders. There were 252 responses (41%) which were generally opposed to the proposals, and 151 (25%) responses which were generally supportive.

3 Responses from members of the public

There were 614 responses from members of the public.

3.1 Public consultation results

To help us understand more about who replied we asked two questions. We asked respondents whether they use route 159 and if so how often.

Question one

Do you use route 159?

300

250

200

150

100

0 Yes No Not answered Total Number of replies 582 17 15 614

Question two

How often do you use route 159?

250

200

150

100

0 More than Once a Once a Once a Not once a Total month week day Answered day Number of replies 217 117 98 77 105 614

We asked respondents whether they had any comments about our proposal. Of the 619 responses, 618 provided comments. The table below summarises the views and suggestions made. A separate document will respond to the main points raised by respondents.

Number of times Issue issue raised Generally against proposal 252 Generally support proposal 151 Generally neutral or no comment 92

Positive / Support Only if improve the reliability 37 Would improve the service 19

Negative / Against Double fares for many passengers 36 Inconvenient for mobility impaired people or the elderly 30 159 is only 24h link to Paddington from South London 22 Alternatives too far away from Paddington Central 14 Alternative service needs to be provided 13 Extra capacity needed at Paddington, not less. 4 Affects night service 2

Neutral No comment 48 Neutral opinion 44 Travel to Paddington 98 Do not normally travel beyond Marble Arch 79 Doesn't directly affect me 36 Access to Heathrow via Paddington Station 20 Travel to West End 16 Extend route 332 to Basin 11 Use Tube as alternative to Paddington (more dependable) 9 Commute or visit St Mary's hospital 8 Extend route 15 to replace 4 Improve reliability, don't cut route back 4 Not Answered 3 Change routeing 2 Express service 2 Timed tickets 2 Alternatives more reliable 1 Lots of new development for the area planned 1

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

There were five responses from stakeholders, shown below.

London TravelWatch Thank you for consulting with London TravelWatch on these proposals and inviting our views. We also appreciated meeting with you to talk this through.

Whilst this proposal will disbenefit a small number of passengers and reduce the capacity along the section of the route between Paddington and Marble Arch, we accept that overall this is outweighed by the benefits in terms of the better use funds available to TfL and the improvements that will be made in the reliability of route 159. We also note that the new entrance into Paddington station allows a short cut for pedestrians to be able to reach Praed Street and the bus routes there.

As you know we are keen that passengers using this route are consulted. Can you please tell us if TfL has emailed passengers via their Oyster accounts to elicit their views?

We also want TfL to explain more fully the pros and cons of the changes that are being made. You told us when we met that less than 50 passengers a day use the stop which will no longer be served. We would welcome this statistic (rather than just a percentage) being included in both the consultation information and the eventual decision notice if you choose to implement the proposal.

It would also be helpful to tell those consulted how often the service has been terminated in the recent past and the cost savings that will be made compared to the financial support the route gets from TfL. Also passengers would want to know how these savings might be re-invested to support other services providing better value for money.

Can consideration be given to ensuring the change occurs after the reopening of Edgware Road station as the 159 currently provides an alternative service from this station? Can TfL monitor crowding levels on the remaining bus routes on the Paddington to Oxford Street corridor once the change has taken place?

Westminster City Council This is Westminster City Council’s response to TfL’s consultation on the proposal to withdraw bus route 159 between Marble Arch and Paddington Basin, meaning that Edgware Road and Paddington Station would no longer be served by route 159. The proposal would also result in the removal of all bus services from North Wharf Road at Paddington Basin.

The City Council objects to the proposal. Route 159 provides an important link between Paddington Basin and the West End and is used by local residents and workers and visitors to the Paddington area. It is also used by residents in the area to the north of Harrow Road who use recently improved pedestrian crossing facilities to and from North Wharf Road. A number of new developments in the Paddington Basin area, including Merchant Square and the North Westminster Community School site, are likely to lead to a potential increase in demand for bus route 159 in

the relatively near future and its withdrawal is therefore considered premature. The current patronage of route 159 is also likely to have been affected by the diversions and delays have occurred as a result of the current Crossrail construction works in Eastbourne Terrace which are programmed to be completed in approximately 2 months.

The City Council is also awaiting details from TfL about the proposed bus network in central London in 2018 after the opening of Crossrail and considers that any changes to bus services at Paddington should be made in that wider context.

The City Council also considers that Marble Arch is unsuitable as the revised terminus of bus route 159 because of the lack of suitable bus standing space. Further details are required about the existing and proposed use of bus stands at Marble Arch.

I would also add that prior to the opening of the new Bishops Bridge at Paddington in 2006, there were no bus services over the bridge as there was a 7.5t weight limit. The construction of the new bridge provided opportunities for new bus services to be introduced. Subsequently, bus route 15 was extended from Paddington Station to North Wharf Road (later replaced by route 159), However, TfL required sponsorship for the enhancement of bus services and sought financial support from the City Council. The City Council made a financial contribution to TfL of £557,724 for the extension of bus route 15 to North Wharf Road at that time, and considers that the bus service over Bishops Bridge to Paddington Basin should be retained.

The City Council considers that if route 159 is withdrawn between Marble Arch and Paddington Basin, then additional mitigation measures should also be put in place to maintain a similar level of bus service to Paddington Station and Paddington Basin. One option would be to extend bus route 436 from Paddington Station to North Wharf Road via Eastbourne Terrace and Bishops Bridge Road. This option would remove the need for buses on route 436 to run out of service to the bus stand in Westbourne Street as at present. This would be particularly beneficial during the forthcoming Crossrail roadworks in Sussex Gardens which will require buses on route 436 to be diverted for 15 months from February 2014. An alternative option would be to extend bus route 453, which currently terminates at Marylebone Station, to North Wharf Road via Marylebone Road and Harrow Road. This would maintain a direct bus service between Paddington Basin and Oxford Circus / Piccadilly Circus / Trafalgar Square. A further option would be to increase the frequencies on bus routes 7 and 23 so as to maintain a similar total frequency and capacity between Paddington Station and Oxford Street.

PRACT (Paddington Residents’ Active Concern on Transport ) PRACT is a consortium of four amenity societies recognised by Westminster City Council, see above, whose combined areas cover most of the old borough of Paddington. PRACT’s objectives are to do with public transport and infrastructure.

We object to the proposal to truncate route 159 at Marble Arch. The effect would be to reduce the capacity of the bus routes to Paddington Station and to eliminate any bus service to North Wharf Road, which is in the middle of the development area north of Paddington Basin.

This area is still being developed and new proposals now under consideration would add some 500 flats by 2017, on top of a further 500 or so already approved. The latest proposal would also add a large school. It makes provision for a bus stand as part of the proposal. Indeed, some £ ½ million of ‘community benefit’ provided by developers was specifically allocated to the funding of the original service to the area by route 15, later replaced by route 159.

The proposal would also reduce capacity on buses from the West End to Paddington Station. We have not seen any figures on the loading of the complementary routes as far as Paddington Station (routes 7 and 23), particularly in the peak hours, and are therefore not convinced by statements that there would be adequate capacity. For passengers with luggage an inconvenient (and expensive) change of bus would become necessary.

We regard a change also as premature: from February 2014 the current diversions of many bus routes, due to the current closure of Eastbourne Terrace, will come to an end. Route 159, like other routes, will revert to its previous shorter route by way of Eastbourne Terrace. It will also be necessary to consider the routeing of bus 436 from its stand in Westbourne Street, which will be interrupted for a period by Thames Water works in Sussex Gardens. Transferring this stand to a stop/stand in North Wharf Road could be considered.

Paddington Business Improvement District Paddington Business Improvement District launched on 1st April 2005 and represents over 350 businesses located in the vicinity of Paddington mainline station.

Paddington BID is concerned that any revision or removal of the 159 service at this time would be inappropriate as there are a number of developments and other construction work underway or commencing shortly. These will substantially affect the numbers of residents and workers needing to move around the area and consideration of any reduction or loss of public transport services would be mistimed.

The developments in Merchant Square and the North Westminster Community School site will see the number of new residences increase by over 1,000 whilst the new free primary school will provide places for over 400 4-11 year olds. All of these people will need access to regular service. As well, in February 2014, Eastbourne Terrace will reopen for public transport after a two year closure and many bus routes will be amended, reducing travel times and making the service more attractive as a travel option.

Because the 159 potentially serves much of the local area's businesses, residents and visitors as it comes through from the West End, via Marble Arch to Paddington Basin, we believe that no change should be made to the current service in the immediate future. By 2018 most of the developments will be occupied, Crossrail will be preparing to operate and further enhancements of the local underground network will be being progressed - a full review of the integrated travel requirements and service options will need to take place then and routes amended as part of a service plan rather than as a short-term cost-cutting exercise.

Paddington BID therefore objects to the proposed route 159 contraction.

Paddington Waterside Partnership The Paddington Waterside Partnership (PWP) would like to respond to consultation that is currently in progress outlining the proposed changes to the 159 bus route which currently runs from Streatham Hill to Paddington Basin. The proposed changes would see the route stop short at Marble Arch, leading to the route no longer serving Edgware Road, Paddington Station or the Paddington Basin.

The Paddington Waterside Partnership works with local development partners and companies to ensure that London’s fastest growing and most dynamic location meets the needs of business, visitors and the local community – today and in the future. It is an Opportunity Area in the Mayor’s London Plan. As such we object strongly to the proposal of stopping the 159 service at Marble Arch as this would lead to the Paddington Basin no longer being served by a direct bus service.

The 159 currently acts as a link between Paddington Basin and the West End used by workers, residents and visitors alike. If this were to change the connectivity and attractiveness of the basin could well be damaged. The proposed changes seem to be concerned only with the current poor performance of the route in the short term and not what the longer term future holds. Paddington Basin is an area primed for further development with new developments such as Merchant Square, North Wharf Gardens, Dudley House and Bridge House set to add over 1,000 new dwellings in North Wharf Road alone. A two form entry primary school is also proposed, which will host over 400 pupils. These developments will increase the demand for the 159.

Undoubtedly the Crossrail works in Eastbourne Terrace have had a detrimental impact on the 159’s route, increasing journey times and discouraging passengers from using the service, as it becomes quicker to walk in the route’s last stages. With Crossrail planning to reopen Eastbourne Terrace to buses in February the partnership would push for no changes to be made until the impact that this has on the route has been fully assessed.

Although changes to the area such as the new canals side station entrance which is mentioned in the consultation overview has had an impact on the way people access Paddington Basin the 159 is still an important piece of the jigsaw and to remove it would be sending the wrong message in terms of smarter travel choices and encouraging people to use an already crowed Paddington underground station. The 159 is also essential for accessibility resilience to the area. As if for any reason the Underground were to be closed for maintenance or suspended the 159 along with the 36, 23 and 7 would be key to ensuring accessibility is maintained between Paddington and the West End.

If TfL’s firm position is to see the 159 terminate at Marble Arch then the partnership would push for the Basin to be served by an alternative route maintaining its connectivity to the bus network, the West End and the rest of London.

Other Boroughs There was no response from the London Boroughs of Southwark or Lambeth.

Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted London Travelwatch

Elected Members Darren Johnson AM Gareth Bacon AM Jenny Jones AM Murad Qureshi AM Nicky Gavron AM Valerie Shawcross AM Richard Tracey AM Caroline Pidgeon AM Andrew Boff AM Victoria Borwick AM Tom Copley AM Stephen Knight AM Fiona Twycross AM James Cleverly AM Karen Buck MP Mark Field MP

Local Authorities City of Westminster London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Southwark London Councils

Local Interest Groups Paddington Business Improvement District PRACT (Paddington Residents’ Active Concern on Transport ) SEBRA (South East Bayswater Residents Association)

Other Stakeholders Greater London Forum for the Elderly Stroke Association The British Dyslexia Association Action on Hearing Loss Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance CBI Joint Mobility Unit London Older Peoples Strategy Group Mind RADAR London Access Forum Sixty Plus RNIB (Royal National Institute of Blind People) Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Age Concern London Committee Living Streets Campaign For Better Transport Disability Alliance Age UK Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Sense Partially Sighted people Central London Clinical Commissioning Group

Appendix B

List of questions asked:

1. What is your name? ______

2. What is email address? ______This is optional, but if you enter your email address then you will be able to return to edit your consultation at any time until you submit it. You will also receive an acknowledgement email when you complete the consultation.

3. What is your organisation? ______

4. What is your postcode? ______

5. Do you use route 159? a. Yes □ No □ b. If you do use route 159, how often do you travel to or from Paddington Basin? □ Once a month □ Once a week □ Once a day □ More than once a day

6. Do you have any other comments?

Copy of consultation notice displayed in bus stops served by route 159