Proposed changes to bus route 5

Consultation Report July 2017 Contents

Executive summary ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Purpose ...... 5 1.3 Detailed description ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 6 2.1 Purpose ...... 6 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 6 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 6 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 6 2.5 What we asked ...... 7 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 7 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 7 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 8 3. About the respondents ...... 9 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 9 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation (Public) ...... 9 3.3 Methods of responding ...... 10 3.4 Postcodes of respondents ...... 11 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 12 4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 ...... 12 4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 ...... 13 4.3 Summary of responses to Question 2 ...... 14 4.4 Map of support ...... 14 4.5 Summary of responses to Question 3 ...... 16 4.6 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 17 4.7 Comments on the consultation quality ...... 18 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ...... 19 Appendix B: Consultation questions ...... 21 Appendix C: Consultation materials ...... 22

2 Letter and map ...... 22 Stakeholder email ...... 24 A4 Bus stop poster ...... 25 Online consultation ...... 26 Example of customer email ...... 28 Appendix D: Letter/leaflet distribution ...... 29 Letter distribution area ...... 29 Appendix E: List of Stakeholders consulted ...... 30

3 Executive summary

Between 5 August 2016 and 3 October 2016, we consulted on proposals for changes to route 5 in Romford.

We received 642 responses to the consultation. 635 responses were submitted by members of the public and 7 were from stakeholders. Of the 635 responses received from members of the public 447 (70 per cent) supported or partially supported our proposed change to route 5.

24 per cent (154) respondents said they did not support changes to route 5.

All of the seven stakeholders that responded supported the proposals.

The main issues arising from the consultation are summarised below, with detailed analysis provided in Appendix A.

Summary of issues raised during consultation The following issues were most commonly raised in comments submitted in response to the consultation:

• Support for the proposed routeing and direct access to Queen’s Hospital, Romford • Opposition to the proposals as unnecessary (other routes already serve Queen’s Hospital directly) • Opposition to the proposal due to loss of route 5 service on South Street • Support and generally positive comments for better direct access to Queen’s Hospital from Barking / • Opposition / Concern expressed that proposals will lead to inconvenience and slower journey times, or complications to existing passenger journeys

4 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction The London bus network is kept under regular review. As part of this, we develop proposals for changes to services. Consultation was undertaken on proposals to change the structure of route 5, rerouteing buses via Queen’s Hospital, Romford and away from South Street, Romford.

1.2 Purpose The proposals were designed to provide improved bus access to Queen’s Hospital, Romford. This proposal was developed in response to requests and following a review of bus access to Queen’s Hospital. The full details of this can be found on our website: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/review-bus-access-queens-and-king-george- hospitals.pdf

1.3 Detailed description

1.3.1 Overview Route 5 runs between Canning Town and Romford Market every 6-7 minutes Monday to Saturday during the day and every 8-10 minutes in the evenings and Sunday daytimes. We have worked closely with stakeholders including the Hospital NHS Trust to look at providing improved access to healthcare at Queen’s Hospital in Romford.

1.3.2 What are we proposing? We are proposing the following changes to route 5:

• Buses would be rerouted at Rom Valley Way to serve Queen’s Hospital, Oldchurch Rise, and Oldchurch Road. Buses would use these roads in both directions • Buses would no longer serve the section of South Street between Oldchurch Road and Rom Valley Way • Route 5 would continue to serve Romford town centre and Romford Station

These changes would improve access to Queen’s Hospital from the Barking and Dagenham area by providing a direct bus service.

South Street, Romford would continue to be served by routes 252 and 248 providing direct links for passengers into Romford town centre. There would be no change to night route N15 which would continue to serve South Street. An illustration of the proposals is included in Appendix C.

5 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

• To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the proposals

• 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 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

2.3 Who we consulted The consultation intended to seek the views of local residents and businesses, current users of bus route 5, those who may potentially use route 5 to access Queen’s Hospital, Romford. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, ward councillors and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix E.

2.4 Dates and duration The consultation was open for a period of eight weeks between 5 August 2016 and 03 October 2016. The eight week consultation period was scheduled to allow sufficient time for stakeholders and members of the public to consider the proposals and to respond.

6 2.5 What we asked We asked the following questions about the proposals in our online questionnaire:

• How often do you use route 5? • Do you support the proposal for changes to route 5? • Do you have any comments about our proposals for these bus routes?

2.6 Methods of responding People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods:

• emailing us at [email protected] • accessing the online consultation and survey via the following website link: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/5/ • by post using the TfL Freepost address

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity

2.7.1 Website The consultation was published online. A dedicated web page explained the background to the proposal and detailed the proposed changes. We invited people to respond by answering two specific questions, with a third question allowing for a free text area for respondents to comment on the proposals.

2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets We delivered a letter and illustration to local households and businesses around South Street, Romford. The leaflet distribution area can be found in Appendix D.

2.7.3 Emails to public

We sent an email to approximately 7000 registered Oyster Card holders who use route 5. The copy of the text of this email can be found in Appendix C.

2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders We sent an email to 186 stakeholders inviting them to respond to the consultation. A copy of the email can be found in Appendix C.

2.7.5 Press and media activity A press release was prepared and issued to local media advertising the consultation. Local newspapers the Barking and Dagenham Post, and the Romford Recorder reported the consultation on 9 August 2016, and included links to the consultation page for readers to provide their feedback.

7 2.7.6 On-site advertising A4-size posters highlighting the consultation were displayed at bus stops served by route 5 between Canning Town, Rush Green Road and Romford town centre during the consultation. A copy can be found in Appendix C.

2.7.7 Information stand

An information stand was held for one morning session in the lobby at Queen’s Hospital, Romford on 23 August 2016. Leaflets were distributed to staff and visitors, and information provided about the proposals. Leaflets were displayed at the permanent travel information stand in the hospital atrium, and at the information desk.

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses Analysis of the consultation was carried out by our team of Consultation analysts. All responses received were logged, collated and tagged thematically using our Consultation Hub software.

Seven respondents had submitted the same response more than once. The repeated responses were deleted and only one response was considered in the consultation results.

Eight respondents submitted more than one response which differed to, or expanded on their feedback. In these cases the comments were consolidated and considered as a single response to the consultation.

8 3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total % Public responses 635 99 Stakeholder responses 7 1 Total 642 100

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation (Public)

Q8. How did you hear about this consultation?

Received an email from TfL 242 38% Received a letter from TfL 15 2% Read about in the press 39 6% Saw it on the TfL website 44 7% Social media 82 13% Other (please specify) 161 25% Not Answered 52 9% Total 635 100%

Q8. How did you hear about this consultation? 300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Received Received Read S a w it on O ther S ocial Not an email a letter a bout in the T fL (please media Answered from T fL from T fL the press webs ite s pecify) R esponses 242 15 39 44 82 161 52 % 38% 2% 6% 7% 13% 25% 8%

9 Q8. How did you hear about this consultation? – Other

Local authority / newsletter 77 12% Hospital source 33 5% Bus stop poster 17 3% Word of mouth 14 2% Employer 12 2% Nothing submitted 8 1%

Q8. How did you hear about this consultation? - Other 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Local H os pita l Bus stop Word of Nothing authority / E mployer source pos ter Mouth s ubmitted news letter R esponses 77 33 17 14 12 8 % 12% 5% 3% 2% 2% 1%

3.3 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total % Website 593 93 Email 28 4 Letter 5 1 Comments form / Questionnaire 9 2 Total 635 100

10 3.4 Postcodes of respondents 503 respondents supplied a postcode.

Postcode Total % RM8 153 24 IG11 112 18 RM7 60 10 RM9 59 9 RM10 22 4 RM1 21 4 RM11 16 3 RM6 8 1 IG3 6 1 E6 5 1 RM12 4 <1 RM3 4 <1 E13 3 <1 IG6 3 <1 RM13 3 <1 RM2 3 <1 RM5 3 <1 E16 2 <1 IG1 2 <1 Other postcodes represented by a 14 2 single response No postcode provided 132 21 Total 635 100

11 4. Summary of all consultation responses

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

Q1. How often do you use route 5?

Daily 221 35% 2-3 times a week 160 25% Once a week 63 10% 1-2 times a month 78 12% Rarely 64 10% Never 15 2% Not Answered 34 5% Total 635 100%

Q1. How often do you use route 5? 250

200

150

100

50

0 2-3 times Once a 1-2 times Not Daily R arely Never a week week a month Answered R esponses 221 160 63 78 64 15 34 % 35% 25% 10% 12% 10% 2% 5%

12 4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2

Q2. Do you support the proposal for changes to route 5?

Yes 411 65% Partially 36 6% Not sure 10 2% No opinion 3 <1% No 154 24% Not Answered 21 3% Total 635 100%

Q2. Do you support the proposal for changes to route 5? 450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Not Y es P artially N ot s ure No opinion No Answered R esponses 411 36 10 3 154 21 % 65% 6% 2% 0% 24% 3%

13 4.3 Summary of responses to Question 2 There were 614 people who answered the question “Do you support the proposal for changes to route 5?”. 411 (67 per cent) of these respondents supported the changes. 154 (25 per cent) did not support the proposal.

The remaining respondents partially supported the changes, were not sure, or had no opinion as detailed above.

4.4 Map of support 503 respondents provided a postcode. The map on the following page shows the distribution of support in the local area in accordance with the postcode provided.

The map shows that the proposals are well supported by Barking and Dagenham residents generally, with opposition to the proposals more pronounced in the immediate areas around Rush Green Road and South Street, Romford.

14 15 4.5 Summary of responses to Question 3 We asked respondents if they had any comments about the proposals. Of the 635 people who responded to this consultation, 383 (60 per cent) respondents submitted comments. 33 respondents submitted comments by email or by letter, nine commented using printed forms and 341 respondents submitted comments in the open text box in the online questionnaire.

252 respondents answered one or more of the multiple choice questions but did not submit comments. Some respondents submitted comments regarding more than one issue. All comments were analysed and the issues raised in the comments field were individually tagged and counted. The total number of individual comments tagged and identified by the 383 respondents was 911.

Comments submitted by stakeholders are not included in this count. Stakeholder responses are summarised in chapter 4.6 below.

A detailed analysis of the 911 tagged comments is available in Appendix A.

The ten most frequently raised issues, and the number of times they were submitted were:

Route 5: Ten Most Frequently Raised Issues Support: Better / direct access to Queen's Hospital (general) 133 Oppose: Other routes already service Queen's Hospital 95 Oppose: Loss of service to South St (and adjacent streets) 85 Support: General support / positive comments 81 Oppose: Will cause inconvenience / slower journey times / timetable issues 74 Support: Better / direct access to Queen's Hospital from Barking / Dagenham 60 Negative: Increase in journey time 45 Suggestion: Reroute EL1 and/or EL2 to serve Queen's Hospital (instead of 5) 32 Concern: Route will be subject to more congestion 30 Oppose: Prefer to maintain current route 28

16 4.6 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

The Council supported the proposal and noted that the proposed direct service for residents to Queen’s Hospital was welcomed, noting that ongoing reorganisation of health services in East London would mean that improved links to Queen’s from the Barking area would be required in future.

London Borough of Redbridge

London Borough of Redbridge supported the proposed changes and stated that the proposal would improve access to Queen’s Hospital for residents.

London Borough of Havering

Havering Council supported the proposed changes to route 5 but emphasised the importance of maintaining routes 248 and 252 along South Street to ensure local residents retain connections into Romford town centre.

Councillor Hardial Singh Rai, Eastbury ward

Supported the proposals and believed that the proposed change would make the journey to Queen’s Hospital much easier for residents of Barking and Dagenham.

Councillor Simon Bremner, Goresbrook ward

Supported the proposals.

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (BHRUT)

BHRUT fully supported the proposed changes to Route 5, saying that it helped patients and staff to access the Hospital directly from both directions with no interchange. BHRUT noted that the proposal supports the aims of their travel plan developed to improve patient, visitor and staff access to their hospitals. BHRUT has received many requests to divert route 5 from Barking into the Hospital to give patients and staff direct access.

London TravelWatch

Supported the proposals.

17 4.7 Comments on the consultation quality 575 respondents responded to the question regarding the quality of the consultation or included comments about the consultation process in their response:

• 546 (85 per cent) believed that the quality of the consultation was very good, good, or acceptable • 29 (less than five per cent) respondents believed that the quality of the consultation was either poor, or very poor • 12 of these respondents commented that the consultation was not well publicised • Three comments stated that more information should have been provided in the consultation materials • One comment was submitted that stated the materials presented were misleading • One comment stated that they should have been consulted by post • One respondent rated the consultation material and quality as poor because they “had not been consulted”

The eleven remaining respondents that rated the consultation as poor or very poor left no comment.

Q9. What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)?

Very good 238 37% Good 193 30% Acceptable 115 18% Poor 20 3% Very poor 9 <2% Not Answered 60 <10% Total 635 100%

18 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments

Of the 635 responses received from members of the public, 383 left comments in the open text field, or included comments in their email or written response. 911 individual comments were identified and analysed. The analysis of the frequency of themes were raised is given below, most frequent first.

Comments ranked by frequency (Highest to lowest) Support: Better / direct access to Queen's Hospital (general) 133 Oppose: Other routes already service Queen's Hospital 95 Oppose: Loss of service to South St (and adjacent streets) 85 Support: General support / positive comments 81 Oppose: Will cause inconvenience / slower journey times / timetable issues 74 Support: Better / direct access to Queen's Hospital from Barking / Dagenham 60 Negative: Increase in journey time 45 Suggestion: Reroute EL1 and/or EL2 to service Queen's Hospital (instead of 5) 32 Concern: Route will be subject to more congestion 30 Oppose: Prefer to maintain current route 28 Support: Beneficial for elderly / less abled / restricted mobility 26 Concern: Negative impact on local elderly / less-abled / restricted mobility population 20 Support: Better for Queen's Hospital staff 20 Oppose: Desired journey no longer possible 15 Suggestion: Specific route suggested 14 Negative: Already rerouted services from this area in the past 11 Oppose: Restricts access to school/s 11 Suggestion: Implement proposed changes immediately 11 Support: Will ease parking at Queen's Hospital 11 Oppose: New route will cause more congestion 10 Suggestion: Need more buses / increase frequency / increase capacity 10 Suggestion: Reroute another service to Queen's Hospital 10 Concern: May result in pedestrian safety issues 7 Concern: Route will become more crowded 5 Negative: Journey will now require interchange 5 Suggestion: N15 to follow proposed 5 route 5 Concern: Proposal is politically motivated 4 Oppose: Restricts access to retail hubs 4 Other: Unclear comment 4 Suggestion: Reroute only a portion of 5 buses to Queen's Hospital, while remaining buses maintain existing route 4 Support: Support - provided frequency is maintained 4 Negative: Bus timetables are unreliable 3 Oppose: Barking residents already have direct access to King George's Hospital 3 Other: Out of scope of this consultation 3

19 Suggestion: Reroute EL1 and/or EL2 to service Queen's Hospital (as well as route 5) 3 Concern: Will contribute to overloading the Queen's Hospital A&E department 2 Oppose: General opposition 2 Question: How many will be affected on South Street (no longer serviced)? 2 Question: What has changed since this was last consulted on? 2 Suggestion: Improve parking at Queen's Hospital 2 Suggestion: Improvements to junctions leaving Queen's Hospital 2 Suggestion: Reroute 175 onto South St (from West) 2 Concern: Pollution from buses servicing Queen's Hospital dangerous to patient health 1 Concern: Proposed new route just mirrors Route 175, limiting benefits of change 1 Information: Request for information on how N15 will be affected 1 Suggestion: Implement changes during school holidays 1 Suggestion: Increase frequency of 175 and 103 (opposed to rerouting 5) 1 Suggestion: Install bus lane in Romford 1 Suggestion: Stops on route 5 should be more spread out 1 Suggestion: Timetable buses according to demand 1 Support: Support - provided the timetable remains the same 1 Support: Support - provided there is another direct route from Barking/Dagenham to Hornchurch 1 Support: There will still be routes that service South St (and surrounding areas) 1 Total 911

20 Appendix B: Consultation questions

Questions about our proposals

• How often do you use route 5? • Do you support the proposal for changes to route 5? • Do you have any comments about our proposal for route 5?

Questions about the respondent (All questions were optional)

• What is your name? • What is your email address? • Please provide us with your postcode? • If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name: • How did you hear about this consultation? • What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)?

21 Appendix C: Consultation materials

Letter and map

22

23

Stakeholder email

24 A4 Bus stop poster Posted at stops along route 5 during consultation period

25 Online consultation

26 27 Example of customer email Sent to registered passengers using route 5

28 Appendix D: Letter/leaflet distribution

Letter distribution area Letters were distributed to residents and businesses in the area bounded by Clydesdale Road, Rom Valley Way, Park Lane, and Thurloe Gardens

29 Appendix E: List of Stakeholders consulted

Elected Members Caroline Russell AM Caroline Pidgeon AM Claire Hamilton AM David Kurten AM Keith Prince AM Kemi Badenoch AM Nicky Gavron AM Peter Whittle AM Shaun Bailey AM Sian Berry AM Tim Steer AM Unmesh Desai AM Andrew Boff AM Fiona Twycross AM Tom Copley AM Andrew Rosindell MP Romford Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford and Woodford Green MP Leyton & Wanstead MP Dagenham and Rainham MP West Ham Dame MP Barking MP South MP East Ham MP Ilford North Cllr Danielle Lawrence Abbey ward Cllr Giasuddin Miah Abbey ward Cllr Laila Butt Abbey ward Cllr Chris Hughes Albion ward Cllr Darren Rodwell Albion ward Cllr Sanchia Alasia Albion ward Cllr Evelyn Carpenter Becontree ward Cllr Faruk Choudhury Becontree ward Cllr James Ogungbose Becontree ward Cllr Robert Benham Brooklands ward Cllr Roger Westwood Brooklands ward Cllr Viddy Persaud Brooklands ward Cllr Jeff Wade Chadwell Heath ward Cllr Sade Bright Chadwell Heath ward Cllr Sam Tarry Chadwell Heath ward Cllr Edna Fergus Eastbrook ward Cllr Mick McCarthy Eastbrook ward Cllr Tony Ramsay Eastbrook ward Cllr Faraaz Shaukat Eastbury ward 30 Cllr Hardial Singh Rai Eastbury ward Cllr Jeanne Alexander Eastbury ward Cllr Abdul Gafoor Aziz Gascoigne ward Cllr Dominic Twomey Gascoigne ward Cllr Saima Ashraf Gascoigne ward Cllr Irma Freeborn Goresbrook ward Cllr Moin Ali Quadri Goresbrook ward Cllr Simon Bremner Goresbrook ward Cllr Daniel Young Heath ward Cllr Dave Miles Heath ward Cllr Linda Reason Heath ward Cllr Carol Smith Hylands ward Cllr Garry Pain Hylands ward Cllr Jody Ganly Hylands ward Cllr Lynda Rice Longbridge ward Cllr Rocky Gill Longbridge ward Cllr Syed Ahammad Longbridge ward Cllr Adegboyega Oluwole Mayesbrook ward Cllr Danielle Smith Mayesbrook ward Cllr Kashif Haroon Mayesbrook ward Cllr Chris Rice Parsloes ward Cllr Elizabeth Kangethe Parsloes ward Cllr Linda Zanitchkhah Parsloes ward Cllr Amardeep Singh Jamu River ward Cllr Eileen Keller River ward Cllr Peter Chand River ward Cllr Frederick Thompson Romford Town ward Cllr Joshua Chapman Romford Town ward Cllr Wendy Brice-Thompson Romford Town ward Cllr Bill Turner Thames ward Cllr Cameron Geddes Thames ward Cllr Josephine Channer Thames ward Cllr Jane Jones Valence ward Cllr Maureen Worby Valence ward Cllr Syed Ghani Valence ward Cllr Lee Waker Village ward Cllr Margaret Mullane Village ward Cllr Philip Waker Village ward Cllr John White Whalebone ward Cllr Liam Smith Whalebone ward Cllr Melanie Bartlett Whalebone ward

Local Authorities London Borough of Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Havering London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge

31 Police & Health Authorities Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Havering Safer Transport Team London Ambulance Service London Fire Brigade Metropolitan Police NHS Care Commissioning Group Barking and Dagenham NHS Care Commissioning Group Havering NHS Care Commissioning Group Newham NHS Care Commissioning Group Redbridge Redbridge Safer Transport Team

Transport Groups Better Transport Living Streets London Cycling Campaign London TravelWatch Road Haulage Association Sustrans

Local Interest Groups South Leytonstone Area Development Association (SLADA) Thames View Residents Association

Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (Formerly RNID) Age Concern London Age UK Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Brentwood Bus and Rail User’s Association BT Campaign for Better Transport DABD (uk) Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee EDF Energy GMB Greater London Forum for the Elderly Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Living Streets London Older People's Strategy Group London Omnibus Traction Society MIND National Children's Bureau National Grid

32 RMT RNIB RNIB Royal Mail Sense Sixty Plus Stroke Association Thames Water The British Dyslexia Association The London Legacy Development Corporation Unite Union

33