Consultation on possible changes to routes R5 and R10

Consultation Report

November 2013

Contents

Section 1 Introduction 2 The consultation

3 Responses from members of the public 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

Appendices

A List of stakeholders consulted

1 Introduction

We consulted stakeholders about a proposal to adjust the timings of routes R5 and R10 to ensure that the bus has sufficient time to complete its journey.

We proposed that the routes would run every 75 minutes from Station (meaning a bus every 2½ hours in each of the directions around the loop). Although this is less frequent than the current service it should result in a significant improvement in reliability. The consultation took place between 18 October and 22 November.

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

Routes R5 and R10 run from Orpington Station via Green St Green and then serve the communities of Pratts Bottom, Halstead, , Knockholt Pound and before returning to Green St Green and Orpington. They use a single bus, with journeys operating clockwise around the loop using the R5 number, and those running anticlockwise numbered R10. The bus is scheduled to depart from Orpington approximately once an hour although there are longer intervals at peak periods. Hence it is scheduled to run every two hours in each of the directions around the loop. The services run on Mondays to Saturdays (except evenings).

However, routes R5 and R10 are not running as reliably as we would like meaning that at times customers are waiting longer for the bus to arrive.

2 The consultation

The consultation was designed to enable TfL to understand stakeholder opinion about proposed changes to routes R5 and R10.

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 public consultation intended to seek the views of stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix A. The summary of their responses is given in Section 4.

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

The consultation was published online via our consultation tool. We advised key stakeholders of the link

We explained the background to the proposal and asked for any comments that people may have

We invited people to respond online using the consultation tool

2.4 General response

There were 92 responses in total (all received online) 80 from members of the public and 12 from stakeholders. There were 87 responses which were generally opposed to the proposals, and 5 responses which were generally supportive.

3 Responses from members of the public

• There were 80 responses from members of the public

3.1Public consultation results

The table below summarises the various comments and suggestions made by members of the public.

Number of times Issue issue raised

Use smaller buses to prevent them getting stuck when in conflict with other large vehicles to improve reliability 34 Would make it difficult to use at school times as timings may mean you are too late or too early 17 Adverse affect on elderly and those without cars 14 Need to ensure that journeys connect with train times 11 Change will put people off from using the bus 9 Change will make the timetable very confusing 8 Change will mean too long a wait between buses 7 Do not cut the route any further 7 Keep current frequency 6 Remove the Halstead loop to improve reliability 6 Change will make more people use cars 5 Good idea 5 Will make it harder for those who rely on the bus 4 This is just an excuse to cut costs 4 Less buses will make it difficult for people to use it to commute 3 Remove the Orpington High Street loop to improve reliability 3 Regulate the service better 2 Increase the service do not decrease it 2 Merge route with the R8 2 Extend route to to attract more passengers 2 Merge with Route R7 2 More buses on the route will improve reliability 1 Bad idea 1 Move the driver change over to the end of the route to improve reliability 1 Change will make it difficult for people to access the medical centre 1 No problem with reliability – leave it alone 1 Would run better as one route 1

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

There were 12 responses from stakeholders, these are outlined below.

• AM Having consulted with constituents, their experience is that reliability of the R5/R10 bus service worsens as the day progresses. For this reason I understand that the solution is to give more turnaround time at the station so that late-starting at Orpington is reduced. However, there are concerns that the reasons for the cumulating delay is that, on any given trip, journey times depend on whether the bus is held up by oncoming vehicles in the lanes between Pratts Bottom, Knockholt ,Cudham and roundabout. Another factor is peak hour traffic in Orpington. So it is unclear whether reducing frequency addresses the root causes of the problem rather than just passing it on to users through a worse service.

Residents have reported that delays to the service seem to improve when a large bus is occasionally replaced by a smaller vehicle. So this is one solution to a root cause worth trying before changing the frequency - indeed you presumably have some experience and information on the impact of this solution on reliability from past experience of using the smaller bus?

Finally, it would be helpful if the morning peak service (for commuters) could remain scheduled for once an hour, and thereafter it would not present such a problem if the service was rescheduled to a 2.5 hour turnaround.

• Cllr Julian Grainger - London Borough of Reducing the frequency is not ideal.

Has TfL considered reducing the size of bus (to same as R8 for Biggin Hill)? Having followed R5 or R10 along country lanes, its large size may contribute to delays. Please can you send me data on demand throughout the day - at a sample of points along the route

There is some (perhaps small) demand to get from Pratts Bottom to Biggin Hill - to Charles school.

The R8 route (at Berrys Green) comes within a few hundred yards of the R5/R10 route (at Cudham Church). The appropriate R5 could be diverted to Biggin Hill at Cudham (changing number to R8). Meanwhile the appropriate R8 from Biggin Hill could be diverted to Cudham and re-number to R5.

• Old Hill and Cudham Lane Residents Association If the bus cannot complete the existing route within the existing timetable reliably, rather than reduce the number of journeys (I bet no other route within London runs less often), removing the Halstead loop would seem a better solution. Halstead is also served by the 402 running hourly, and whilst this does not go to Orpington, it is a simple matter for Halstead residents to change in Green Street Green onto the 358 (every 15 minutes), R1 (every 15 minutes) or R11 (every 15 minutes). It seems unfair that Cudham residents should have their service further curtailed just to improve punctuality.

• Cudham Community Centre Trust This bus service is very important to those residents who do not have access to a car and reducing the frequency of the service would be very detrimental to the village. In order to get to a Doctors or hospital appointment in Green Street Green, Orpington or Farnborough it is vital to have a frequent service.

Residents who travel down on one bus have time to do a supermarket shop and come back on the next. If they ran only every 75 minutes this would not be practical.

Commuters connecting with morning and evening trains must be considered also school children. Please do not cut this important service to our villages.

• Cudham Church The theory sounds OK, but it will be the actual times that determine whether the proposal is acceptable, even sensible.

• Knockholt Parish Council The current size of bus is way too wide for the narrow lanes. The solution is much smaller, more fuel efficient buses, capable of maintaining sensibly scheduled timings through the narrow lanes.

• Cudham Diamond Club At a recent meeting I asked how many of the 25 who were there used the R5 and R10. This is a club for the over 60's. There were 9 people who raised their hands and they use this on a regular basis in Cudham as they are unable to drive. It’s their only way of actually getting out and about and their shopping as we have no immediate local shops. One of the reasons I suspect that the bus gets delayed is that it often meets large vehicles in the lanes. It would be better if we could have a slightly smaller one similar to that used in . We must keep the bus for locals who cannot drive and children.

• Green Street Green Primary School We understand that TFL are considering reducing the frequency of the R5 and R10 bus service. In a semi rural area such as this, families need to make use of the transport services that are available. This is the only bus service that serves the families from the Cudham Lane Area. They have no other choice of public transport. As a school, we are encouraged by the Local Authority, to promote the use of public transport, instead of contributing to congestion at key times (namely the beginning and end of school day). We have several families that either make regular, or occasional use of the aforementioned bus services. The new proposed infrequent service will make the use of the bus totally impractical and would necessitate families making other arrangements, such as driving to and from school. We would suggest that the change in these bus services would have a disproportionately large impact in terms of increasing traffic and inconveniencing the community, and that service reductions, if necessary at all, should be made on other, better served, routes.

• Cudham Residents Association The R5/R10 bus is the only public transport for Cudham residents. The existing hourly service is already minimal and residents are concerned about the effect of further reducing the frequency of this service would have on the elderly and school children and those who do not have own transport. Looking at the route map of this service, the section that takes the bus into Halstead village could easily be omitted without affecting the rest of the route. If this proposal were implemented, it would significantly cut the length of the route and give the bus a far greater chance to complete the route according to the existing timetable (1 hour). This may inconvenience Halstead residents but the village would still be served by the once-hourly 402 bus travelling from Tunbridge Wells to Bromley, via Greet St Green (Orpington) where they could change onto the 358 (every 15 minutes), R1 (every 15 minutes) and R11 (every 15 minutes). We are aware that the narrow section of Cudham Lane North makes it difficult when the bus passes another large vehicle in the opposite direction and some years ago the Association did suggest that maybe a narrower bus (such as that used on the nearby R8 route) might overcome this problem. We are convinced that much of the delay on this route is for that reason.

• Green Street Green Medical Centre A lot of my patients rely on these bus services to get to and from this surgery how are they possibly going to be able to make appointments when they are poorly if their bus is taken away from them.

• Halstead Parish Council 1. Halstead Parish Council believes that the timetable should remain as it is. 2. These proposals would increase the waiting time for elderly and frail passengers many of whom have no other means of visiting their doctor or pharmacist and of carrying out their shopping. 3. The changes to the time table will also affect those who use the bus to get to and from their place of work. 4. If changes have to be implemented Council believes that the route in Halstead should be amended and the bus should travel down Shoreham Lane to the junction with London Road, passing along London Road to turn up Watercroft Road back into the centre of the Village in Station Road. This would mean the bus would not travel along the congested residential Clarks Lane and would mean that more parishioners would have access to the bus. 5. Council believes the problems experienced by the bus drivers are caused by Cudham Lane itself - the restrictions on that road should be assessed. 6. Council understand that there is now signage at the entrance to Cudham Lane from Green Street advising drivers to amend their sat-navs so that large lorries do not venture up Cudham Lane

• Bromley Council There was no final response from the Council itself but they requested more information for the reasons for the change.

Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members Darren Johnson AM AM Jenny Jones AM Murad Qureshi AM Nicky Gavron AM Valerie Shawcross AM Richard Tracey AM AM AM Victoria Borwick AM Tom Copley AM Stephen Knight AM Fiona Twycross AM James Cleverly AM MP MP Jim Dowd MP MP MP Cllr Colin Smith

Local Authorities London Borough of Bromley County Council District Council London Councils

Local Interest Groups Orpington and District Public Transport Users Association Bromley and District Consumer Group and District Residents Association Disability Voice Bromley Bromley Council on Ageing Bromley Residents

Other Stakeholders Forum for the Elderly The British Dyslexia Association Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Joint Mobility Unit Mind Sixty Plus Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Living Streets Disability Alliance

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted people Stroke Association RNID CBI London Older Peoples Strategy Group RADAR London Access Forum RNIB Age Concern London Campaign For Better Transport group Age UK Sense

Police & Health Authorities Bromley Safer transport team

Transport Groups London TravelWatch Association of British Drivers Road Haulage Association British Motorcyclist Federation Green Flag Group Freight Transport Association AA Motoring Trust