Bus Routes 112 and 611

Bus routes 112 and 611

Consultation Report April 2020

Contents

Executive summary ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Consultation overview ...... 1 Summary impact analysis ...... 2 Key findings: ...... 2 Next steps ...... 3 1 Summary of consultation responses ...... 4 1.1 Summary of responses to Question 1: Which of these buses do you use and how often do you use them?...... 4 1.2 Summary of responses to Question 2: How do you think the proposed changes to routes 112 and 611 would affect your journeys? ...... 5 1.3 Summary of responses to Question 3: Which school do you or your family attend? ...... 7 1.4 Summary of response to question 4: Do you have any comments on the proposed new bus stops ...... 8 1.5 Summary of response to question 5: Do you have any other comments on the proposed changes to routes 112 or 611? ...... 9 1.6 Summary of responses to question 6: Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact Assessment?...... 10

1.7 Stakeholder responses ...... 11 1.8 Petitions or campaigns ...... 12 1.9 Response to issues raised ...... 13 2 About the consultation ...... 15 2.1 Purpose ...... 15 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 15 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 15 2.4 Dates and duration ………………………………………….……………..…….16

2.5 What we asked...... 16 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 16 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 16 2.8 Publicity and advertising………………………………………………………...17

2.9 Equalities Impact Assessment …………………………………………………17

2.10 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 18 3 About the respondents ...... 19 3.1 Volume of respondents ...... 19 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 19 3.3 Who responded ...... 20 3.4 Comments on the consultation process and material ...... 22 4 Next steps ...... 24 4.1 Next steps ...... 24 Appendix A: Stakeholder list ...... 25 Appendix B: Stakeholder summaries ...... 33 Appendix C: Consultation notification and publicity materials ...... 36

Executive summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on proposals to extend route 112 and withdraw route 611 to improve the areas served.

Background

Over the past ten years, there has been substantial growth on bus route 112. In the last five years, the number of passengers has increased by 50 per cent. With development plans at Stonebridge Park, Harrow Road and Brent Cross, passenger numbers are expected to increase further.

Route 112 currently runs from Ealing Broadway to Brent Cross via Hanger Lane and Stonebridge Park. We set out proposals to extend route 112 from Brent Cross to North Finchley bus station via Henlys Corner.

As the 112 extension would broadly parallel the 611 school route, we proposed to withdraw this route. The 611 runs one morning journey from Stonebridge Park station to East Finchley cemetery and one afternoon journey from East Finchley cemetery to Stonebridge Park with around 60 trips each way on a double deck bus. Our analysis showed that only one trip per school day would be broken, this is a passenger using stops on Regents Park Road. Consultation overview

Between 11 September to 28 October 2019 we consulted on proposals for changes to bus routes 112 and 611 to improve the areas served.

We received 231 responses to the questions in the consultation; 225 were from members of the public and 6 were from stakeholders. See tables below.

Respondents Number Per cent Public 225 97% Stakeholders 6 3% Total 231 100% Table 1. Volume of consultation respondents

Number Question Response 1 Which of these buses do you use and how often do you use 91% them? 2 How do you think the proposed changes to routes 112 and 611 90% would affect your journeys 3 Which school do you or your family attend? 63% 4 Do you have comments on the proposed new bus stops? 61% 5 Do you have any other comments on the proposed changes to 69% routes 112 or 611? 6 Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact 78% Assessment? Table 2. Consultation questions and response rate

Summary impact analysis

• Just over half all respondents perceive it would prolong their journey time, over a third it would decrease or stay the same. The remainder didn’t know or it wasn’t applicable. • Over a third of respondents thought more interchanges would be required but over half of the respondents thought it would decrease or stay the same. The remainder didn’t know or it wasn’t applicable. • Just under half stated it would decrease levels of comfort and well over a third thought it would increase comfort levels or stay the same. The remainder didn’t know or it wasn’t applicable. • Just under a third of respondents stated it would decrease the frequency of the 112 service, nearly a half of the respondents perceive the proposals would increase the frequency of the service or stay the same. The remainder didn’t know or it wasn’t applicable.

Petitions

There were no petitions submitted as part of the consultation.

Summary of response from those attending schools

The majority of respondents who attended schools or had a family member attend a school were from Bishop Douglass Catholic School (61 per cent) and to a lesser degree 2 per cent stated they attended Christ’s College and the remainder (38 per cent) covered mainly a range of other schools in the area.

Key findings:

Main themes and insights provided by respondents included:

• Supportive of 112 extension and it would mean less changing & waiting for buses • Against the withdrawal of the 611 bus service • Changes will be an inconvenience for school students • Safety concern for school children, crossing busy roads, waiting for buses • Health and safety concerns for children and others on busy roads • Concerns about congestion/ overcrowding on the bus • Changes will result in longer journeys for students • Larger buses are needed to match demand and would increase frequency

Key issues and responses raised by stakeholders included: • Opposed to the withdrawal of the 611 route • Removing the 611 service would put more children at risk (collisions, accidents, pollution and violence). • Christ’s College and Bishop Douglass will be most affected by the changes • Support the extension of 112 bus route to North Finchley bus station as benefit to passengers.

• Suggest an increase in frequency and capacity on other routes to compensate withdrawal of 611 which passengers may be diverted to.

More detailed analysis can be found in Sections 1.1 – 1.9 and Section 3 below.

Next steps

Following our analysis and consideration of all the consultation responses, we have decided to proceed with our proposals to extend the 112 route. We have also decided to withdraw route 611 route at the end of the summer term 2020 but will continue to monitor loadings and impact on routes 112 and 232. Suggestions were made about providing bus priority along the 112. TfL is investing in bus priority schemes and route 112 will be examined as part of this programme. A number of other service proposals were provided, including improving bus links to the Royal Free Hospital. TfL will consider these as part of the ongoing planning of the bus network.

1 Summary of consultation responses

1.1 Summary of responses to Question 1: Which of these buses do you use and how often do you use them?

1.1.1 The graphs, tables and summary analysis below show the numbers of people who expressed their views on the bus change proposals for routes 112 and 611 detailed in 1.3 to 1.9. These graphs don’t include numbers for those who did not answer each question.

1.1.2 Overall, the consultation generated a broad split between respondents who used the 611 and 112 services, with 174 respondents (51 per cent) users of the 611 bus service and slightly less respondents (49 per cent) users of the 112 service. The graph below sets out the public responses to this question.

1.1.3 Figure 1 represents the public views of those that responded to the consultation online. Stakeholder analysis can be found in section 1.7 of this report.

Which of these buses do you use and how often do you use them? 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Several times Daily Once a week Occasionally Rarely Never Total a week Route 112 45 28 11 30 19 31 164 Route 611 62 7 0 4 9 92 174

Figure 1. Which of these buses do you use and how often do you use them?

1.1.4 611 bus route – usage summary and analysis

Key findings: • 40 per cent use it regularly (daily/several times a week/weekly) • 2 per cent seldom use it (occasionally/rarely) • 58 per cent never use it

1.1.5 Of those respondents who stated they used the 611 bus service, less than half (40 per cent) of those use it regularly (daily to several times a week). A very few respondents (2 per cent) seldom used it and over half (58 per cent) never use the service but this could be respondents who have children who

use the service but don’t use it themselves – this is reflected in the response to Question 3 related to schools.

1.1.6 112 bus route – usage summary

Key findings: • 45 per cent use it regularly (daily/several times a week/weekly) • 25 per cent seldom use it (occasionally/rarely) • 30 per cent never use it

1.1.7 Of those respondents who stated they used the 112 bus, a greater percentage use it regularly (45 per cent) with a quarter (25 per cent) using it occasionally and just less than a third (30 per cent) never use it.

1.2 Summary of responses to Question 2: How do you think the proposed changes to routes 112 and 611 would affect your journeys?

1.2.1 The table below shows the volume of responses across four factors in relation the proposed changes (Journey time; Amount of Interchange; Comfort; and Frequency of Service). The proceeding graph and analysis presents the responses overall and across the four factors.

Frequency of Factor Journey time Amount of interchange Comfort service Total 204 203 203 202 Table 3. Number of respondents for factors on changes to route 112 would affect their journeys?

Journey time

1.2.2 Just over half (54 per cent) stated the proposals would increase journey times and under quarter (22 per cent) perceive they would decrease journey times. A smaller share of respondents (14 per cent) indicated the proposals would maintain journey times and 6 per cent didn’t know and 5 per cent stated it wasn’t applicable.

1.2.3 Collating the responses together indicates that whilst just over half (54 per cent) all respondents perceive it would prolong journey time, 36 per cent perceive it would decrease or stay the same whilst 11 per cent didn’t know or stated it wasn’t applicable to them.

Amount of interchange

1.2.4 Just over a third (37 per cent) stated the proposals would increase the amount of interchange required to complete their journeys and less than a third (29 per cent) stated it would decrease them. One quarter (24 per cent) stated it would stay the same and 6 per cent stated it wasn’t applicable and 4 per cent didn’t know.

1.2.5 Collating the responses together indicates over a third of respondents (37 per cent) thought more interchanges would be required due to the proposals but

over half of the respondents (53 per cent) thought it would decrease or stay the same whilst 10 per cent didn’t know or it wasn’t applicable.

How do you think the proposed changes to route 112/611 would affect your journeys? 100% 90% 28% 29% 80% 37% 70% 54% 60% 31% 50% 29% 48% 40% 22% 30% 18% 24% 20% 14% 11% 10% 17% 6% 6% 9% 0% 5% 4% 4% 4% Amount of Frequency of Journey time Comfort interchange service Increase 110 76 56 59 Decrease 44 58 97 63 Stay the same 28 48 23 37 Don't know 12 13 19 35 Not applicable 10 8 8 8

Figure 2. How do you think the proposed changes to route 611/112 would affect your journeys?

Comfort

1.2.6 Nearly a third (28 per cent) stated the proposals would increase levels of comfort. Just under half (48 per cent) thought it would decrease levels of comfort and 11 per cent of respondents stated it would stay the same and 9 per cent didn’t know and 4 per cent stated it wasn’t applicable.

1.2.7 Collating the responses together indicates that whilst just under half (48 per cent) stated it would decrease levels of comfort, 39 per cent thought it would increase or stay the same, with 10 per cent didn’t know or stated it wasn’t applicable to them.

Frequency of service

1.2.8 Nearly a third (29 per cent) stated it would increase the frequency of the 112 service and slightly more of the respondents thought it would decrease the frequency (31 per cent) with 18 per cent stating it would stay the same. Nearly a fifth of respondents didn’t know (17 per cent) and 4 per cent stated this question wasn’t applicable to them.

1.2.9 Collating the responses together indicates that under a third (29 per cent) stated it would decrease the frequency of the 112 service, nearly a half of the respondents (47 per cent) perceive the proposals would increase the frequency of the 112 service or stay the same and 17 per cent didn’t know or stated it wasn’t applicable to them.

1.3 Summary of responses to Question 3: Which school do you or your family attend?

1.3.1 The majority of respondents who stated they or a family member attended a school were from Bishop Douglass Catholic School (61 per cent) and to a lesser degree 2 per cent stated they attended Christ’s College and the remainder (38 per cent) covered mainly a range of other schools in the area. See graph below.

Which school do you or your family member attend? 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bishop Douglass Other (please Christ’s College Total Catholic School specify) Number of responses 77 2 48 127 Percentage respondents 61% 1% 38% 100%

Figure 3. Question 3: Which school do you or your family attend?

1.3.2 Of the 38 per cent of respondents who stated they attended other schools than Bishop Douglass Catholic School or Christ’s College in question, the table below shows the establishments that were mentioned. Woodhouse College was the highest (3 respondents) and Wren Academy (2 respondents). However, the majority of those that responded to this question did not indicate which school they attended.

Which school do you or your family member attend? Number Woodhouse College 3 Wren Academy 2 Compton School 1 Crest Academy 1 East Barnet School 1 Jewish Free School 1 Kisharon School 1 St Joseph Primary School 1 St.Augustine Priory School at Hillcrest Road, Ealing 1 West Hertforshire College 1 Westminster Kingsway 1 Woodlane High School Du Cane Road 1 Table 4. Respondents who specified school from Bishop Douglass Catholic School and Christ College.

1.4 Summary of response to question 4: Do you have any comments on the proposed new bus stops

1.4.1 The main comments provided for this question related to both routes and the inconvenience for pupils with issues covering the safety of children crossing the road and waiting for buses. The third most popular viewpoint was general opposition against the withdrawal of the 611.

1.4.2 There was also an equal measure of support for the proposals as those against withdrawal of the 611 route with a focus on the benefits that extension of the 112 would provide in terms of shorter more direct routes. There was also suggestions that double decker buses and increased frequencies were needed. The following table outlines the main themes and comments for issues commonly raised in this open question.

Concerns Number 112/611 Changes will be an inconvenience for school students 36 Safety concerns for school children/crossing busy roads/waiting for buses 32 611: Against the withdrawal of this bus service 31 112: Impact on double decker buses/decreased efficiency/delays 7 112: Concern about 112 becoming overcrowded 5 Generally negative 5 Current services are already over capacity and/or it will have an affect on the reliability of other routes 3 112: Concerned about delays due to congestion on the North Circular Road during peak times 2 112: Bus service will become unreliable/unreachable 2 Bus stops: None of the stops provide any sort of increase in bus service or routes to East Finchley Station 1 112: Leave it as it is 1 Concerns with the level of pollution currently 1 Support Generally supportive 31 112: Extension of 112 from Brent Cross to North Finchley bus station 6 112: Direct route/shorter journey/convenient 5 112: Will enable passengers to travel to Brent Cross 1 Suggestion 112: Double decker buses needed 14 112: Increase frequency 11 112: Introduce bus stops on Great N way road 2 112: Should include bus stops in East Finchley 1 Bus stops should be accessible 1 Make it 24 hours service/Introduce night bus 1 Hopper bus should be removed 1 Use of eco-friendly buses 1 Put accurate time scales of when the buses will arrive and CCTV on bus stops 1 112: Service should run a bit later 1

Should have more lighting in the area 1 Other Other: Not affected/do not use the route 2 Unclear Comment 1 Total 207 Table 5: Issues raised in response to Question 4

1.5 Summary of response to question 5: Do you have any other comments on the proposed changes to routes 112 or 611?

1.5.1 The main themes arising from the question inviting respondents to provide any additional comments on the proposals entailed: questions related to the capacity and frequency of the 112; requests not to withdraw the 611 service; followed by health and safety, overcrowding and longer journey concerns for students. There was also an equal measure of support for the extension of the 112.

1.5.2 There were also suggestions on capacity matching demand and increased frequencies required, as well as other measures suggested. The following table outlines the main themes and comments for issues commonly raised for this open question.

Themes and issues commonly raised Further information Will the new 112 be a double decker or be a single decker bus? 3 Will the frequency of 112 increase or stay the same? 2 When will the new route start? 1 What plans are in place for these changes to work successfully if the route is extended? 1 Concerns 611: Leave it as it is/Do not remove this route 26 Health and safety concern for children/others on bus stops on busy roads 19 Concerned about congestion/ overcrowding on the bus 12 112/611: Changes will result in longer journeys for students 12 Extension will lead to reduced reliability 10 The current services are already overcrowded/unreliable/poor 6 611: Against students on the 112, a separate service should be provided. 4 Opposed to extension as route too long 2 Oppose to the proposal/generally negative 2 TfL doesn't listen to service users 1 Traffic on A406 will delay the buses 1 Safety concern to pedestrians/cyclists/risk of more accidents due to congestion 1 There will not be a bus stop near me 1 It will have an effect on reliability of other routes 1 Support 112: Supportive of the extension 24 Generally supportive 11

Extension would mean less changing & waiting for buses 2 Positive with condition: Strong support of extension, but only if the route being manageable and not being split in the future 1 Positive with condition: Unless the services run in bus lanes/may harm business 1 Suggestion Bigger buses needed to match demand 32 Increase frequency 16 Create bus lanes along the North Circular, preferably between Brent Cross, and Henly's Corner 3 Introduce an express orbital bus service from West to North London 2 112: Introduce another bus from Ealing to North Finchley 2 Need a bus stop at Finchley Memorial Hospital 2 112 Should be routed to provide some sort of service to cover east Finchley station and the surrounding areas 2 112: Make it 24 hours Service 2 611: If this route stops create another one for the convenience of school journeys 2 Increase frequency at school times/peak rush hours 2 189: Extend this route to North Finchley 1 Extend to Friern Barnet 1 A bus lane in each direction on the A406 at the approach to the A1 junctions would help journey times immensely 1 460 Route should be diverted at Henly's Corner to serve Brent Cross shopping centre 1 112: Route should pass through Great N way road 1 Put 112 following the same route of 611 1 Divert extended 112 via Finchley Community Hospital 1 Extend 112 via North Circular Road and Regents Park Road offers many more usable journeys 1 Introduce a bus route from North Finchley to the Royal Free and Swiss Cottage/extend routes 46 or 168 to North Finchley 1 Increase frequency and capacity on other routes to compensate the changes to the 611 1 Other Insignificant comment/unclear comment/out of scope 3 Total 222 Table 6. Issues raised in response to Question 5

1.6 Summary of responses to question 6: Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact Assessment?

1.6.1 The EqIA examines what impact (positive or negative) all of the proposed route changes have on customers with characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010.

1.6.2 We consider the impacts of bus service change proposals on equality groups throughout the planning process ensuring, where possible, effective mitigations are in place where no viable alternative is available.

1.6.3 A large majority of respondents (94 per cent) didn’t have any comments with 6 per cent providing their views. The following graph and table of comments provided more detailed information.

Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)? 200 150 100 50 0 Yes No Total Number of responses 11 165 176 Percentage respondents 6% 94% 100%

Figure 4. Question 6: Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA).

1.6.4 The following list of comments were received in relation to our EqIA. The majority of issues within the EqIA across a total of 16 responses centred on fully addressing child safety in terms of pollution, road collisions, violence and bullying or stress that would be entailed with the removal of the 611.

Negative Generally negative/opposed 3 Safety concern - children waiting for a bus in an isolated/ polluted area 2 Ealing residents being ignored 1 It is incomplete and the value of the mitigation measures is overstated 1 Increased journey time for students puts them at greater risk to road collisions 1 This will have a disproportionate effect on children 1 Priority should be to protect children with respect to street violence 1 Long walk will increase likelihood of a pupil or employee suffering bullying, fatigue or mental stress 1 Impact on disabled/vulnerable/mentally challenged children/pupils 1 Don't know about this/Don't understand the question being asked 1 Positive Agree with EqIA 1 Other Have not read EqIA 1 Hoping for a fair assessment and inclusion of everyone affected and their needs 1 Total 16 Table 7. Comments provided on the consultation Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

1.7 Stakeholder responses

1.7.1 We sent out the consultation to a broad range of stakeholder organisations. A full list of stakeholders can be found in Appendix A.

112 & 611 Stakeholders 1) Mike Freer MP 2) Bishop Douglass Catholic School 3) Potters Bar and St Albans Bus User Group 4) Torrington Park Residents Association (resident) 5) London Assembly: Councillor Arjun Mittra 6) Barnet council: Safe and Sustainable Travel Coordinator Table 8. List of key stakeholders who responded to the consultation

1.7.2 The main comments, concerns and suggestions provided by stakeholders are outlined below.

Key issues raised by stakeholders Number • Against withdrawal of 611 4 • Christ’s College and Bishop Douglass will be most 4 affected by the changes. • Removing the 611 would expose pupils to potential 3 violence • Support the extension of 112 bus route to North 2 Finchley bus station as benefit to passengers. • Suggest you increase frequency and capacity on 2 other routes to compensate withdrawal of 611 • Removing the 611 service would put more children at risk from collisions and accidents with longer 2 journeys • Removing the 611 would increase pupils exposure to 1 pollution • 112 could run Kew-Brent cross or North Finchley to interchange with extended orbital routes 232 and 1 337, as part of a 4 route orbital loop • Route 112 increase in usage would suit double deck 1 operation. • Bus only lanes required to make 112 more rapid service and question demand for beyond Brent 1 Cross from North Finchley. • Pupils likely diverted to 143 bus which will create additional stress on this service so other services 1 should be adjusted. Table 9. Key comments and issues provided by stakeholders

1.7.3 All stakeholder replies and comments have been considered and the issues raised have informed our decision-making process. See Appendix B for the summaries of stakeholder responses.

1.8 Petitions or campaigns

1.8.1 No petitions or campaigns were generated in response to this consultation.

1.9 Response to issues raised

1.9.1 The following presents TfL’s response to the key issues raised.

1.9.2 Route 112

Issue • Concerns were raised that extending route 112 would make it less reliable and lead to gaps in service.

TfL response • TfL recognise that extending a route can adversely affect the its reliability. To help avoid this sufficient recovery time will be scheduled at each terminus so that even if a bus arrives late it should still be able to leave on time. This will avoid gaps in service.

• Suggestions were also made about providing bus priority along the 112. TfL is investing in bus priority schemes and route 112 will be examined as part of this programme.

Issue • Concerns were raised that extending the 112 might lead to crowding on the route

TfL response • TfL have reviewed current loadings in detail. This work has identified that for most of the day there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the current demand, and the expected increase from the longer route.

• However it has also shown that in the early morning, prior to 7 o’clock, some buses are crowded. This is particularly the case in the Stonebridge Park area. TfL are now investigating ways of alleviating this by providing more capacity in the early morning.

• Once the service change has been introduced TfL will keep loadings under review. If demand continues to increase and this is likely to lead to crowding, then ways of providing more capacity will be examined.

1.9.2 Route 611

Issues • A number of issues have been raised about the proposed withdrawal of school route 611 which are dealt with below. TfL response • We will withdraw the 611 as consulted upon but will continue to monitor loadings and impact on routes 112 and 232.

Issues • The main issues raised concerned children being at more risk from collisions, accidents, pollution and knife crime.

TfL response • TfL recognise that the proposed withdrawal of route 611 would mean some children would have to walk an additional 450m walk to reach Bishop Douglas school. This would be to and from stops on the North Circular adjacent to East End Road. This could increase their exposure to risk. However, the extended 112 service will give children who live west of Brent Cross greater flexibility in when they travel to or from school, without the need to change buses. This could allow more children to attend after school activities for example.

• There seems to have been some misunderstanding that we were expecting children to walk to or from Finchley Central. This is not the case. Route 112 will not serve Finchley Central but run along the North Circular, serving the same stops in this area as route 232.

Other Suggestions • A number of other service proposals were made, including improving bus links to the Royal Free Hospital. TfL will consider these as part of the ongoing planning of the bus network.

2 About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were to:

• give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information` about the proposals and allow them to respond • understand the level of support or opposition for the proposals • evaluate issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware • identify and consider any concerns and objections • allow respondents to provide insights and suggestions through open comments sections which we might not have been considered or identified.

2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation • Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme • Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

Our response to issues raised is detailed in Section 1. The consultation outcome and next steps are set out in Chapter 4.

2.3 Who we consulted

2.3.1 We consulted the general public, the local community, schools and local stakeholders on the proposals. The consultation sought the views of people living and working in the areas along both 112 and 611 routes as well as transport users in the area. Letters were hand delivered to residences and businesses along the routes in the area. See Appendix C for the stakeholder email.

2.3.2 We carried out pre-engagement with London Borough of Barnet officers, in the form of general talks about bus needs in the borough. In addition, we consulted stakeholders including the Metropolitan Police, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. See Appendix C for the copy of the stakeholder letter sent by email.

2.3.3 We sent an email to 21,668 customers who have registered their Oyster card with us in the area to receive information about consultations. Thirty seven per

cent of the emails sent were opened and of these five per cent of people clicked through to the consultation web page. See Appendix C for copy of the customer email. 2.3.4 We contacted local stakeholder groups particularly schools that may be impacted as well as cycle groups and resident associations. Engaging with these groups allows us to receive a collective view of many members of the local community and people that travel through it. See Appendix A for a full list of regional and local stakeholders notified of the consultation.

2.4 Dates and duration

The consultation was planned to be open between 29 October and 12 December 2019.

2.5 What we asked

2.5.1 The consultation questionnaire contained 19 questions in total including comments on the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) and the quality of the consultation. The consultation contained 5 questions specific to the route changes with 3 open comment questions or sub questions. See below table for questions and response rates.

Questions and response rates Number Question Response 1 Which of these buses do you use and how often do 91% you use them? 2 How do you think the proposed changes to routes 112 90% and 611 would affect your journeys 3 Which school do you or your family attend? 63% 4 Do you have comments on the proposed new bus 61% stops 5 Do you have any other comments on the proposed 69% changes to routes 112 or 611? 6 Do you have any comments on our Equality Impact 78% Assessment? Table 2. Consultation questions and response rate

2.6 Methods of responding

People were able to respond to the consultation through a number of ways. They could complete our online survey on the consultation website. They could also write to us at our free post address. We also provided an email address for people to respond to the consultation.

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity

As well as sending out letters and email to a large customer base, we created a website that laid out our proposals and provided a link to the online survey. The URL was https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-112-and-611/.

2.8 Publicity and advertising

In addition to hand delivered letters to local residents and businesses, a TfL customer email for the area and regional and stakeholder notification, we displayed adverts at 76 bus stops along all of the routes affected by these proposals. A copy of the bus notice can be found in Appendix C.

2.9 Equalities Impact Assessment

2.9.1 In deciding who to consult, we had regard to our public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. As part of the consultation we undertook an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA). The EqIA examines what impact (positive or negative) all of the proposed route changes have on customers with characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010.

2.9.2 We consider the impacts of bus service change proposals on equality groups throughout the planning process ensuring, where possible, effective mitigations are in place where no viable alternative is available. 2.9.3 To ensure that any such impacts were brought to our attention through the consultation, we took steps to ensure that a number of groups representative of people with protected 12 characteristics in the community, including elderly, disabled persons or faith organisations, were made aware of our consultation. The measures we took to ensure these groups could participate in the consultation included identifying g relevant stakeholders such as:

• Age UK London, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Royal London Society of Blind Children, Action on Hearing Loss and Independent Disability Advisory Group, and inviting them to respond to the consultation • Ensuring that the materials were written in plain English, and available on request in different formats (for example, Braille, large print, other languages) • Publishing Equality Impact Assessments within our consultation materials – this allows consultees to identify any significant gaps in our thinking and bring to our attention any impacts which we have not already identified

2.9.4 Question 6 asked respondents if they had comments to raise relating to the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) the consultation. 2.9.5 The majority of respondents (94 per cent) didn’t have any comments with 6 per cent providing their views. See responses below.

Comments/concerns Number Generally negative/opposed 3 Safety concern - children waiting for a bus in an isolated/ polluted area 2 Ealing residents being ignored 1 It is incomplete and the value of the mitigation measures is overstated 1

Increased journey time for students puts them at greater risk to road collisions 1 This will have a disproportionate effect on children 1 Priority should the children with respect to street violence 1 Long walk will increase likelihood of a pupil or employee suffering bullying, fatigue or mental stress 1 Impact on disabled/vulnerable/mentally challenged children/pupils 1 Don't know about this/Don't understand the question being asked 1 Positive Agree with EqIA 1 Other Have not read EqIA 1 Hoping for a fair assessment and inclusion of every one affected and their needs 1 Total 16 Table 10. Key comments provided on the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)

2.10 Analysis of consultation responses

2.10.1 Responses were reviewed by our in-house Consultation Analysts. The online questionnaire contained 19 questions in total including comments on the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) and the quality of the consultation. The consultation contained 5 questions specific to the route changes with 3 open comment questions or sub questions.

2.10.2 Development of a codeframe which summarises and counts the number of comments for open questions and analysis of the consultation responses was carried out by one of our in-house Consultation Analysts. Responses received by letter or email were coded using the same framework.

3 About the respondents

This chapter summarises responses to all the ‘About the respondent’ questions

3.1 Volume of respondents

We received 231 responses to the consultation; 225 were from members of the public and 6 were from stakeholders.

Respondents Number Per cent Public 225 97% Stakeholders 6 3% Total 231 100% Table 1. Volume of consultation respondents

Number of Percentage Type of respondent responses respondents A local resident 127 47% A local business owner 3 1% A student 43 16% Employed locally 25 9% A visitor to the area 11 4% A commuter to the area 40 15% Not local but interested in the scheme 9 3% A taxi/private hire vehicle driver 1 0% Other (please specify) 12 4% Total 271 100% Table 11: Response to the consultation by respondent type

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

3.2.1 A third of the members of the public who responded heard about the consultation via email (distributed to customers, consultation database and through stakeholder channels) and just under a third by other channels and about a fifth by the TfL website.

How did you hear about this consultation? 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Received Received Read Saw it on Other Social an email a letter about in the TfL (please Total media from TfL from TfL the press website specify) Number of responses 67 11 3 34 18 53 186 Percentage respondents 36% 6% 2% 18% 10% 28% 100%

Figure 5: Methods respondents heard about the consultation

3.2.2 For respondents who heard about the consultation through other method than those outlined above, the top three channels were: through school channels (with 6 specifying they heard about it from Bishop Douglass school), bus stop notices and google maps.

Notification sources Total per cent Found out via school 31 58% Bishop Douglass school 6 11% Bus stop 3 6% Google maps 3 6% Table 12: Most popular notification sources through other methods

3.3 Who responded

The following questions asked about the gender, sexual orientation, faith, health/disabilities, age and ethnic group of those who responded. Gender

Number of Gender Percentage respondents responses Male 88 45% Female 87 45% Trans female 1 1% Trans male 1 1% Gender neutral 1 1% Prefer not to say 16 8% Total 194 100% Table 13: Gender of respondents

Number of Percentage Ethnic group responses respondents Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 0 0% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 0 0% Asian or Asian British – Indian 19 10% Asian or Asian British – Other 12 6% Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 2 1% Black or Black British – African 19 10% Black or Black British – Caribbean 22 12% Black or Black British – Other 4 2% Mixed – Other 3 2% Mixed – White and Asian 0 0% Mixed – White and Black African 0 0% Mixed – White and Caribbean 0 0% Other Ethnic Group 3 2% Other Ethnic Group – Arab 3 2% Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 2 1% Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 0 0% White – British 34 18% White – Irish 4 2% White – Other 30 16% Prefer not to say 34 18% Total 191 100% Table 14: Ethnic groups of respondents

Percentage Age Number of responses respondents Under 15 10 5% 16-20 30 15% 21-25 14 7% 26-30 17 9% 31-35 13 7% 36-40 22 11% 41-45 18 9% 46-50 14 7% 51-55 11 6% 56-60 10 5% 61-65 5 3% 66-70 6 3% 71+ 5 3% Prefer not to say 21 11% Total 196 100% Table 15: Age groups of respondents

Number of Percentage Sexual identities responses respondents Heterosexual 118 63% Bisexual 5 3% Gay man 3 2% Lesbian 2 1% Other 7 4% Prefer not to say 52 28% Total 187 100% Table 16: Sexual orientation of respondents

Number of Percentage Religion responses respondents Buddhist 2 1% Christian 89 46% Hindu 12 6% Muslim 9 5% Sikh 2 1% Jewish 8 4% Other 3 2% No religion 30 15% Prefer not to say 40 21% Total 195 100% Table 17: Religious groupings of respondents

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?

Percentage Response options Number of responses respondents Yes, limited a lot 5 3% Yes, limited a little 9 5% No 147 77% Prefer not to say 31 16% Total 192 100% Table 18: Health and disability responses from respondents

3.4 Comments on the consultation process and material

3.4.1 We asked respondents to let us know what they thought about seven factors of the consultation process: The graph below shows the responses to these questions.

What do you think about the quality of this consultation ? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Online Events & Written Maps & Website Promotional Website survey Drop in information images accesibility material format sessions Very good 62 49 54 53 66 26 24 Good 70 75 59 68 64 31 36 Adequate 31 30 44 37 33 28 27 Poor 8 10 6 10 6 5 7 Very poor 4 2 4 4 3 7 10 Not applicable 11 11 16 10 11 81 75

Figure 6. Public responses to question 13: What do you think about the quality of this consultation?

3.4.2 Most respondents felt the quality of the consultation website and the online information and visuals were either good or very good.

4 Next steps

4.1 Next steps

4.1.1 Following our analysis and consideration of all the consultation responses, we have decided to proceed with our proposals to extend the 112 route. We have also decided to withdraw route 611 route at the end of the summer term 2020 but will continue to monitor loadings and impact on routes 112 and 232.

4.1.2 Suggestions were made about providing bus priority along the 112. TfL is investing in bus priority schemes and route 112 will be examined as part of this programme.

4.1.3 A number of other service proposals were provided, including improving bus links to the Royal Free Hospital. TfL will consider these as part of the ongoing planning of the bus network.

Appendix A: Stakeholder list

Abracadabra Preschool Access in London Action on Disability and Work UK Action on Hearing Loss Age UK Age UK Barnet Age UK London Akiva schoo All Saints Church All Saints East Finchley Alzheimer's Society Alzheimer's Society - Barnet Angling Trust Animal Aid & Advice - North London Ann Owens Centre Barnet Anxiety Alliance Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Barnet African Caribbean Association Barnet Asian Old People's Association (BAOPA) Barnet Association for the Blind Barnet Borough Sight Impaired Barnet Brookside Methodist Church Barnet Carers Centre Barnet Centre for Independent Living (BCIL) Barnet Christian Spiritualist Church Barnet Independent Living Service (BILS) Barnet Mencap Barnet Multicultural Community Centre (BMCC) Barnet Pensioners Association Barnet Residents Association Barnet Society Barnet Somali Community Group Barnet Symphony Orchestra Barnet Torch Fellowship Group Barnet Water Polo Club Beach at Brent Cross Beautiful and Scenic Walks Beis Hamedrash Ohr Chodosh synagogue Beis Hamedrash Ohr Chodosh synagogue Believers Love World Church

BEYA Children's Centre Bishop Douglass Catholic secondary school Braintcroft Primary School Braintcroft Brent Cross Shopping Centre Brent Cross shopping Centre development Brent Cross Shopping Centre Manager Brentfield Medical Centre Brentfield Primary school British Blind Sport Burgh House and Hampstead Museum Cabinet Lead & Councillor, Golders Green (C) Campaign for Better Transport Central Ealing Residents Association Centre for accessible environments Chair of the London Assembly's Transport Committee Chandos general manager Chandos tennis court Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) Cherry Tree Wood Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Executive Children's Activity Club (Monday and Tuesday Club) Chinese Mental Health Association (CMHA) Christ Church Barnet Christ Church College Academy Christ Church North Finchley ChristChurch College Academy Church End Library Church Farm Leisure Centre (GLL) City of London Police Cllr Alison Moore Cllr Arjun Mittra Cllr Claire Farrier Commissioning Director - Environment Community Barnet CommunitySpace Confederation of Passenger transport Consolata Fathers Coppetts Wood Conservationists Coppies Grove Residents Association Council Leader & Finchley Church End (C) Councillor, Finchley Church End (C) Councillor, Golders Green (C) Councillor, Hendon ward (C) Councillor, Woodhouse ward (L)

County Hall Owners and Residents Association (CHORA) Cross River Partnership Crossroads Care Central and North London David Lloyd Finchley DeafBlind UK Dementia Club Depression Alliance - Barnet Depression UK Director General (Roads, Local and Traffic) Director of Administration and Development Director of ICE-London Disability Action in the borough of Barnet Disability Alliance Disability Horizons Disability Now Newspaper Disability Rights Disability Rights UK Ealing Abbey Ealing Arabic School Ealing Centre for Independent Living Ealing Civic Society Ealing Community Network Ealing Green Church Ealing Gurdwara Ealing Liberal Synagogue Ealing Passenger Transport User Group East Barnet Baptist Church East Barnet Community Festival East Barnet Residents Association East Finchley Baptist Church East Finchley festival East Finchley Library East Finchley Methodist Church Eating Disorders Association Edgware Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Support Group Edward Marcus Ltd Edwards Language school Ellen Wilkinson School El-Shaddai International Christian Centre Emergency Planning Manager Enfield Vision External affairs lead ICE-London Finchley Jazz Club Finchley Lido & leisure centre Finchley memorial hospital 27

Finchley Methodist Church Finchley Progressive Synagogue Finchley Reform Synagogue Finchley Society Finchley Victoria Bowling & Croquet Club Flower Lane Autism Service Forty Hall and Gardens Friend in Need (FIN) Friend in Need Community Centre Friends of Barnet Environment Centre Friends of Highlands Gardens Friends of Mill Hill Park Friends of the Earth Friends of Victoria Park Finchley Fuelland Allotments Garden Suburb Community Library Genesis Kids and Youth Club Glebe Wood nature reserve Golders Green Parish Church Graeae Theatre Company Greater London Authority: Chair of London Assembly Greater London Authority: London Assembly Members Greater London Authority: Head of Transport Greater London Authority: Deputy Mayor of Transport Greater London Authority: Transport Manager Greater London Authority: Walking and Cycling commissioner Greater London Authority: Education policy Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Harts Theatre Company CIC Hearing Voices Network Hephizabah nursery High Road Baptist Church Highgate Wood Holy Trinity East Finchley Independent Disability Advisory Group Insight School of Art Interim Strategic Lead Commissioner - Transport and Highway Islamic Association of North London Islamic Cultural Centre Islington and St Pancras Cemetr Jami (Jewish Association for Mental Health) Japanesa school Maeda Gakuen Jesus House Jesus House for All Nations Church Jewish Association for the Mentally Ill (JAMI)

Jewish Bereavement Counselling Service Jewish Care Jewish Community Secondary School Jewish Deaf Association Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group Jewish Helpline John Keble Church Kehillas Toras Chaim Kinloss LB Barnet Members' Support Lead Learning Through Horses Lemon Tree Montessori Leonard Sainer Day Care Centre (Jewish Care) Leopold Primary School Lesbian and Gay Bereavement Helpline Liat Levy Links School of English in London Liveability Lifestyle Choices London Living Streets London Ambulance Service (stakeholder team) London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London Assembly Green Party Group London Councils London Cycling Campaign London European Partnership for Transport London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority London Fire Brigade (LFEPA) London First London Friend London TravelWatch LTW Lyonsdown Church Magic Care Supported Living Manor Drive Methodist Church Manorside primary school Maria Montessori School Mary Immaculate & St Gregory the Great Mary Immaculate and St Peter Church Mental Health Tribunals Service Metanoia Institute of Psychology Metropolitan Police Metropolitan Police - Community Police Metropolitan Police Service - NW TMU Islington, Barnet, Haringay, Camden Metropolitan Police Service, Aviation Policing

Middlesex Association for the Blind MIND MIND in Barnet Moorfields Eye Hospital MP: Mike Freer MP: Matthew Offord Nafsiyat Intercultural Therapy Centre NAS National Library Service for the Blind National Schizophrenia Fellowship (NSF) National Talking Newspapers and Magazines NCT- Barnet NCT- Ealing Neasden Boxing Club Neasden methodist church Nepalese Language and Culture Center New North London Synagogue Newstead Children’s centre North Finchley Artsdepot North Finchley library North Finchley mosque North London Aquatics North/West London key stakeholder Oak Lodge School Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Action Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Support Group (Southgate) Optelec Optima Low Vision Services Ltd Outsiders PA to leader: Barnet Pace Pardes House Primary School Phoenix Cinema Trust Pilgrim Tabernacle Polish church Project for Advice, Counselling and Education Raphael House Relate North West London Rephael House Counselling Centre Rethink Richmond Fellowship RNIB Road safety team Roads & Transport Policing Command

Roman Catholic Church of St Agnes Roman Catholic Church of St Alban Roman Catholic Church of St Margaret Clitherow Royal Blind Society for the UK Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) RP Fighting Blindness (The British Retinitis Pigmentosa Society) Saint Luke’s Church of England Sam Beckman Special Day Care Centre SANEline Sangam Association of Asian Women School Travel Adviser School Travel Officer Secretary Seeability senio engineer Senior Campaign Manager Sense TouchBase South East (TBSE) Shree Aden Depala Mita Mandal Shree Balkrishna Gaushala Panjrapod charity Shree Jalaram Mandir Skylark Social Care Consortium Society of London Theatre Southgate Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Support Group St Augustine’s Priory School St Catherine’s Church St James Church St John the Apostle Church St John the Baptist St Jude On The Hill St Margaret's Church St Mary At Finchley Church St Mary Magdalene Church St Mary’s of Finchley St Matthews Church St Michael's and All Angels Church St Michaels Grammar school north Finchley St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church Neasde St Paul's Church St Paul's Church Finchley St Theresa’s Catholic Primary School Staff Officer to the Deputy Director of Operations Startegic Lead Children and Yong People

Strategic Lead - Effective Borough Travel Environment Commissioning Group Surrey Respite Centre Sustrans Talking Book Service (RNIB) Talking Matters The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind The Avenue tennis club The best connection employment centre The Clubhouse The Crest Academy The Greek Orthodox Church of St Catherine The Green Man Community Centre The League of Jewish Women The Manor House Centre for Psychotherapy and Counselling The Princess Royal Trust for Carers The Samaritans (North London branch) The Samaritans (North London branch) The Stable Church The Swaminarayan School Tourism for All UK Traffic Police Traffic Police - Westminster, Crossrail Central, Govt Security Zone Transport & Regeneration Manager, Environment and Operations Transport for All Transport for London Transport Manager Tribeca gym studios Trinity Church Tudor Barnet school Underhill Baptist Church University of West London Valley Way Respite Centre Valley Way Respite Centre Wilf Slack sports ground Wingate & Finchley Football Club Wingate and Finchley Disabled Fans' Forum Woodhouse College Wren Academy y Wykeham primary school Your Choice Barnet

Appendix B: Stakeholder summaries

Mike Freer MP Constituency. Finchley and Golders Green • I am writing in support of the proposed changes to the 112 bus route and its extension to North Finchley Bus Station. Such extension would provide good transport links for pupils within my constituency in addition to allowing non-pupils to also benefit from a merged service. • I believe extending this bus route would have a positive impact on my constituents. Really concerned that forcing our children to walk past Christ College • School (a school that like ours has some gang issues), would increase the risk of violent crimes and stabbings.

Bishop Douglass Catholic School (Includes comments from representatives of the school PTA and other parents) • Removing the 611 bus route would be a grave error and not align with the Mayor’s Transport strategy. • The effect is likely to be an increase in parents using their cars to drop children off in the morning; given the longer walk to school. • Our school has a much higher than average minority of ethnic children and the statistics indicate that such children are far more likely to be seriously injured or killed in serious roads traffic accidents. • The 611 bus our children are likely to cross extremely dangerous roads and have to be near such roads. • The removal of the 611 bus will force our children to walk in areas of high air- pollution and I wonder if an equality impact assessment has been carried out to look at the potential negative impact on or ethnically diverse intake. • Really concerned that forcing our children to walk past Christ College School (a school that like ours has some gang issues), would increase the risk of violent crimes and stabbings. • The withdrawal of route 611 would be detrimental to the accessibility and comfort of the school children. It would mean a longer walk and be inconvenient for students. I am pleading for the 611 to continue running. • It makes a massive difference to the children and their daily journey to school. The children also feel safer as a group when travelling on route 611. • I am very concerned to have to report to you that there has been an incident between our students and Christ College students which has resulted in students from both schools having to be excluded and involved mention of potential knife crime. • I would like to remind you that these issues have the potential to be a lot worse if the changes take place to the 611 bus and would urge you to take

Potters Bar and St Albans Bus User Group • The 112 historically used to run to Palmers Green for many, many years, until it was shortened due to traffic.

• Ideally this could run Kew-Brent cross or North Finchley to interchange with extended orbital routes 232 and 337, as part of a 4 route orbital linked up loop around the proposed outer ULEZ previously suggested. • Route 112 is still strangely single deck, but further increase in usage would suit double deck operation. • Existing single decks could be switched to less busy Metroline TFL routes around north west London that use double decks currently, such as the 292 which has seen a cut in frequency recently due to falling demand.

Torrington Park Residents Association • 112 - unless it uses bus-only lanes will not likely to be quicker than now. Very few people will want to go beyond Brent Cross from N Finchley. • This link will be useful to perhaps remove some car journeys from the N Circular but may harm shops’ turnover and profitability in N Finchley unless business rates can be reduced. • What would be even more useful would be a bus route from N Finchley to the Royal Free and Swiss Cottage. This would take a lot of cars off the road; the journey is currently difficult, requiring a couple of changes. One idea could be to run a new hopper route from N Finchley, E Finchley, Bishops ave, Kenwood, S End Green, RFH, Swiss Cottage. Another would be to extend routes 46 or 168 to N Finchley. • Unless it runs in bus lanes/may harm business. Suggestion: Introduce a bus route from N Finchley to the Royal Free and Swiss Cottage/extend routes 46 or 168 to N Finchley

London Assembly Councillor Arjun Mittra. Party: Labour. Ward: East Finchley. • We are writing in our capacities as Labour Councillors in Finchley and Golders Green, and as the London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden with regard to your plans to extend the 112 bus from Brent Cross to North Finchley and scrap the 611 bus. • Whilst we welcome the proposals regarding the 112 bus, we are greatly concerned by the scrapping of the 611 bus. TfL’s rationale that pupils at Christ College and Bishop Dougalss will walk from Finchley Central up East End Road is an incorrect assumption. This is not a short journey, and is mostly uphill. We believe the impact of this will be that pupils of both schools will alight from the 112 in Finchley Central and take the 143 bus to East End Road and their schools, instead of walking. • This will create additional stress on the capacity of the 143 bus, which is already at breaking point at the times of day the 611 operates. We would not support the loss of the 611 bus, unless there was additional capacity provided on the 143 at this time, either in the form of larger buses or additional services. • Supportive of the 112 but against 611 withdrawal. Leave it as it is/Do not remove this route. It will have an effect on reliability of other routes. Suggest you increase frequency and capacity on other routes to compensate 611

Barnet council: Safe and sustainable travel coordinator (Schools team) • Christ’s College and Bishop Douglass will be most affected by the changes.

• The 611 is well used by both secondary schools. The route from the 2 schools to the North Circular bus stops entails steep steps with the bus stops adjacent to the fast flowing traffic. A certain number of students already use the North Circular bus stops. • I would be concerned that there could be safety issues with adding the 611 students to those bus stops. • I know in the past there were issues with Christ’s College students at those bus stops. • Removing the 611 means that the students are distant from school entrances and not in a clearly visible location – with poor behaviour an additional risk, with the mix of students from both schools. • I think the 232 is a single decker bus so there may be capacity issues if the 611 is a double decker

Appendix C: Consultation notification and publicity materials

1) Stakeholder notification email

Dear stakeholder,

Consultation on bus routes 112 and 611

I am writing to you about our proposals to change bus services in the Brent Cross, East Finchley and North Finchley areas.

What are we proposing?

Route 112 i) Extend to North Finchley bus station Route 112 currently runs from Ealing Broadway to Brent Cross via Hanger Lane and Stonebridge Park.

We propose to extend route 112 from Brent Cross to North Finchley bus station via Henlys Corner.

This new orbital link would:

- Create new connections between the outer London town centres and public transport hubs of Ealing Broadway, Brent Cross and North Finchley - Create new local links between North Finchley/ Finchley High Road to the A406 between Finchley High Road, Henlys Corner and Brent Cross - Support the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy to create better orbital links in outer London and offer sustainable transport alternatives to using private vehicles on the North Circular A406 As this would broadly parallel the 611 school route, we would no longer run the 611. ii) School Bus Route 611 The 611 runs one morning journey from Stonebridge Park station to East Finchley cemetery. Plus one afternoon journey from East Finchley cemetery to Stonebridge Park. There are around 60 round trips per school day on a double deck bus. Well over 90% passengers use the last/ first stop near Bishops Douglass Catholic School. Students can cross East End Road via a controlled crossing. The ‘new’ stops on the A406 North Circular would take five minutes longer to get to. Both stops have shelters. There are no additional road crossings. Bishop Douglass students would need to walk 800m, which would take around nine minutes.

The 112 runs every 10 minutes. The 112 extension would improve access to schools outside of standard opening and closing times for after school and breakfast clubs. Our analysis shows that only one trip per school day would be broken by withdrawing route 611. This is a passenger using stops on Regents Park Road. Have your say

We would like to know what you think about our proposals.

For further information and to give us your views please visit our website: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-112-and-611/ by 21 October 2019.

Alternatively, you can:

• Email us at [email protected] • or write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

You can also request paper copies of plans and a response form, copies in Easy Read format, Braille, large text or another language by emailing [email protected], writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS, or calling 0343 222 1155.

Kind regards,

TfL Consultations

2) TfL Customer email

3) Bus notice