Public Document Pack

Contact:Dominic Millen Group Leader – Transport Planning & Policy Direct: 020 8379 3398 e-mail: [email protected]

THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE GROUP

Thursday, 17th October, 2019 at 7.00 pm in the Dugdale Centre - Dugdale

Membership:

Councillors : Daniel Anderson, Dinah Barry, Chris Bond, Yasemin Brett, Mahtab Uddin (Cabinet Member for Public Health), Lindsay Rawlings, Chris Dey and Stephanos Ioannou

Other Members:

Enfield Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Tim Fellows Transgender Network Enfield Women’s Centre Ginnie Landon / Barbara Le Fevre Enfield Youth Parliament Invitation extended to all members Train Operator - GTR Patrick Ladbury Train Operator – Greater Anglia Alan Neville Network Rail Matt Brennan LBE Enfield – Place Directorate Dominic Millen Over 50s Forum Peter Smith Transport for London Esther Johnson Transport for London David Hooker

Other Invitees:

Ashley Hull-Owolabi, Enfield Resident

1. AGENDA 17 OCTOBER 2019 (Pages 1 - 130)

1 This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 1

Contact: Dominic Millen Team: Traffic & Transportation Direct: 020 8379 3398 email: [email protected]

PUBLIC TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE GROUP

17 October 2019 from 7.00pm to 9.00pm

Meeting Room 2, The Dugdale Centre, Enfield Town, EN2 6DS.

MEMBERSHIP

Councillors: Daniel Anderson, Dinah Barry, Chris Bond, Yasemin Brett, Chris Dey, Stephanos Ioannou, Lindsay Rawlings, Mahtab Uddin

Other Members: Enfield Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Tim Fellows Transgender Network Enfield Women’s Centre Ginnie Landon / Barbara Le Fevre Enfield Youth Parliament Invitation extended to all members Train Operator – GTR Patrick Ladbury Train Operator – Greater Anglia Alan Neville Network Rail Matt Brennan LB Enfield – Place Directorate Dominic Millen Over 50s Forum Peter Smith Transport for London Esther Johnson Transport for London David Hooker

Other invitees: Ashley Hull-Owolabi, Enfield Resident

Membership is by invitation of the Chair.

PLEASE NOTE: This is a meeting that will be held in public, but is not a public meeting.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 To consider and monitor the operation and provision of public transport facilities within the Borough;  To share information on key developments relating to the public transport network including receiving reports from representative forums and groups;  To identify strategic issues for public transport providers to address; and,  To provide input into the development of council policies and responses to relevant consultations. Page 2

AGENDA

1. INTRODUCTIONS & APOLOGIES – 5 MINUTES

2. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS – 5 MINUTES

Members of the Council are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

3. PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES AND ACTION POINTS – 20 MINUTES

Run through of previous meeting notes and updates on action points from previous meeting where they are not covered by the public transport operator updates.

4. PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATOR UPDATES – 50 MINUTES

 Greater Anglia Rail Services - Greater Anglia  Great Northern Rail Services - GTR  London Buses, Overground and Underground - Transport for London  Rail network – Network Rail

5. GTR PASSENGER BENEFIT FUND – 15 MINUTES

Update on progress with identifying schemes.

6. TfL BOROUGH ENGAGEMENT SURVEY – 10 MINUTES

Update on progress with identifying schemes.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS – 10 MINUTES

8. NEXT MEETING INCLUDING DATE – 5 MINUTES

Opportunity for PTCG members to propose agenda items.

Page 3

Contact: Dominic Millen Team: Traffic & Transportation Direct: 020 8379 3398 email: [email protected]

PUBLIC TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE GROUP

11 July 2019 from 7.00pm to 9.00pm Dugdale Centre, London Road EN2 6DS

MEETING NOTES

Councillors (Italics denotes absence):

Daniel Anderson (Chair), Dinah Barry, Chris Bond, Yasemin Brett, Chris Dey, Stephanos Ioannou, Lindsay Rawlings, Mahtab Uddin

Other Members and Guests Attending:

Patrick Ladbury Govia Thameslink Railway Dominic Millen LB Enfield – Place Department Alan Neville Greater Anglia Peter Smith Over 50s Forum Esther Johnson Transport for London Dave Hooker Transport for London

Plus one member of the public.

1. INTRODUCTIONS & APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Barry, Bond, Brett and Ioannou. An apology for lateness was received from Cllr Uddin.

It was noted that some groups were again not represented and it was agreed that more should be done to engage with Youth Parliament members.

2. ELECTION OF CHAIR

It was agreed that Cllr Anderson would be Chair.

3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

None.

4. PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES

These were agreed as an accurate record. Page 4

5. PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVIDER UPDATES INCLUDING RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS ACTION POINTS

Greater Anglia Rail Services - Greater Anglia

The main points of the update and related discussions were:  22 trains have been brought into UK with bulk being for east of England. Some Stansted Express “Air12” units are included. New Bombardier trains are being tested at Derby. Due in service in 2020.  Meridian Water Station now open and being served by previous Angel Road services. An additional 2 trains per hour service is due to start on the 9th September.  Tottenham Hale Station improvements in place including new platform, lifts and bridge access.  92.4% PPMA with focus on timely despatch at Liverpool Street.  Customer satisfaction is now at 80%, which is a significant increase.  Tickets machines now have call assistance to help with ticketing queries and customer information screens and help points are being upgraded.  Looking at timetable changes for May 2020.

Action Network Rail representative to be invited to the next meeting.

Action Clarification should be sought on the discrepancy between the cost to Freedom Pass holders of peak travel on National Rail and TfL services.

Great Northern Rail Services – GTR

Clarification was requested about the continuing temporary timetable and cancellations due to the lack of train crew. It was noted that weekday performance is on target, but weekends remain an issue, due to rest day working and training of drivers. Issues with driver training and availability were discussed and there was an assurance that more drivers and fewer drivers requiring training on new trains should resolve this.

There is a perception that claiming for delays and cancellations is difficult so people do not bother.

Action GTR to confirm the number of claims per period for the past 12 months.

Franchise has been split between new directors to try to get a greater focus on issues for particular routes.

Class 717s are due in service by the end of September.

Engineering works include:  Closure of platforms at King’s Cross to allow two new lines and platforms to be provided.  Closure over August Bank Holiday where there will be a rail replacement service. An issue with the coordination of works between operators was highlighted. Page 5

 From late 2019 to mid-2020 weekend services on Great Northern will divert to King’s Cross to allow cleaning of the Moorgate tunnel.

Access for All mid-tier fund has been launched for schemes up to £1m. This is not sufficient to cover the cost of new lifts at a station.

GTR Passenger Benefit Fund

£15m fund for on and off network improvements with £80k for each of 8 stations in Enfield, namely Crews Hill, Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill, Grange Park, Hadley Wood, New Southgate, Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill. The funding can be used for a range of improvements including both strategic and local.

Action Details of the GTR passenger benefit fund to be sent to ward councillors.

London Buses, Overground and Underground - Transport for London

3 of 54 Class 710s trains have already been brought into service on the Barking to Gospel Oak Line, with remainder due by the end of year.

Will look at potential timetable improvements in line with other operators. Key improvement would be improved off-peak services to Cheshunt and Enfield Town, which TfL are looking into.

Assuming all goes to plan and funding is made available, a W10 route test will be forthcoming followed by public consultation.

The obstruction of Garfield Road has not been identified as an issue by the operator.

Reinstatement of services at North Middlesex University Hospital is progressing. Timescales are to be confirmed once there is agreement on works between the hospital and TfL.

Action 125 curtailment at Eversley Park Road was an issue because there were no nearby stops. TfL have asked the operator for details of incident.

Action More information was requested on 125 bus accidents at Fords Grove.

Action 298 frequency and reliability is an issue, particularly towards Potters Bar.

It is problematic that trains are not running on 3rd August when it is the Prudential Cycle Ride. It was noted that engineering works are planned well ahead and will sometimes clash with events.

Action Details of additional trains on Tottenham Hotspur event days.

The potential loss of car parking at 21 Underground stations, including Arnos Grove and Cockfosters was raised as a result of TfLs decision to develop them Page 6

into residential housing. There are a number of concerns, including the likely dispersion effect of cars being left in neighbouring streets and thereby necessitating 24/7 control parking zones and residents having to foot the bill; the park & ride effect of the current users of the car parks who drive there because of poor public transport connectivity, which this measure fails to address; drop-off and pick-up is already a significant issue at Arnos Grove, whereby buses are blocked from entering the concourse as a result of cars stacking up. This will worsen if these plans proceed with more people likely to consider this option. In Cockfosters, the Cockfosters Road is already log-jammed with traffic and this too is likely worsen if the plans proceed. In Arnos Grove there is also the heritage issue of the iconic Grade II star listed building being flanked by new developments. Considerable local opposition is already in evidence.

Action Nag’s Head Road/Hertford Road works start on the 22nd July with a 5- week closure which will see buses diverted. TfL to provide further details and for these to be communicated to local councillors and businesses.

There were several general queries/points:

 Details of issues (such as location, time, service) are required to identify problems.

 Low frequency services not running to timetable cause particular issues, not least for vulnerable users.

Action More information on the environmental impact of the various franchises was requested.

Action There was a request for improved communication of planned engineering works and related disruption including via councillors and the Council’s Communications Team.

6. BUS REVIEW

The assessment of the 2013 Bus Review has been concluded and the report notes that overall while it contained proposals that would deliver benefits, these would be achieved at the cost of a significant change to current service patterns and established passenger movements. In the present circumstances proposals that put existing passengers and revenue at risk, in the search for an unquantified amount of potential patronage, cannot expect to be viewed favourably.

There are ongoing challenges in respect of the bus network in Enfield, including access to healthcare, low density residential and growth areas, but there are also opportunities, including via new approaches to bus service provision (such as demand response travel), to address these.

To take this forward, the review of the 2013 Bus Review proposes another phase of work is carried out by external advisors. However, given that there is not a budget for a substantial piece of work, the proposed approach is for Council officers to engage closely with TfL to use our combined resources to: Page 7

 Undertake data gathering and analysis to identify key issues and opportunities for the bus network in Enfield.  Identify a small number of short-term interventions which resolve key pinch points, fill missing links and improve overall coverage.  Develop a longer-term plan to deliver increased bus patronage in Enfield. This will include changing the nature and role of bus services.

Agreed That a copy of the Bus Review Review report and related briefing note would be sent out to the Group. The Chair also wanted clarification as to whether the decision not to progress this was the Cabinet Member’s.

7. GTR PASSENGER BENEFIT FUND

Covered under item 5.

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None

9. NEXT MEETING INCLUDING DATE

It was proposed that the next meeting take place on 17th October 2019.

This page is intentionally left blank Page 9

Contact: Dominic Millen Team: Traffic & Transportation email: [email protected]

PUBLIC TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE GROUP

ACTION POINTS FOLLOW UP – UPDATED 07/10/2019

Action Lead Response Network Rail representative to LBE Representative has been invited to next be invited to the next meeting. meeting.

Action completed 22/08/19

Clarification should be sought TfL Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 on the discrepancy between the cost to Freedom Pass holders of peak travel on National Rail and TfL services. GTR to confirm the number of GTR Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 delay repay claims per period for the past 12 months. Details of the GTR LBE Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 passenger benefit fund to be sent to ward councillors. Email sent on 12/07/19 125 curtailment at Eversley TfL At meeting on 11/07/19 TfL confirmed they Park Road was an issue have asked the operator for details of because there were no incident. nearby stops. More information was TfL Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 requested on 125 bus accidents at Fords Grove. 298 frequency and reliability is TfL Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 an issue, particularly towards Potters Bar. Details of additional trains on GA Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 Tottenham Hotspur event days. Nag’s Head Road/Hertford TfL Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 Road works start on the 22nd July with a 5-week closure which will see buses diverted. TfL to provide further details and for these to be communicated to local councillors and businesses. More information on the GA, Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 environmental impact of the GTR, various franchises was TfL

1

Page 10

Action Lead Response requested. There was a request for GA, Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 improved communication of GTR, planned engineering works TfL and related disruption including via councillors and the Council’s Communications Team. It was agreed that final report LBE Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 and related briefing note on the bus review work would be Sent out with meeting invite sent around the Group. Action completed 10/10/19 Clarification as to whether the LBE Raised at meeting on 11/07/19 decision not to progress this was the Cabinet Member’s. The re-opening of Forty Hill at LBE Additional work is to be completed. This will its southern end should be inform a briefing for the Cabinet Member for raised with the Cabinet Environment in May / June. Member for Environment. Briefing was provided on 8th July 2019.

Action completed 22/08/19 191 frequency does not TfL Raised at meeting on 18/04/19 appear to match demand. TfL requested that for this and similar requests, details of specific times and locations are provided so that they can raise with operators.

Action completed 22/08/19 Hertford Road, opposite White TfL / Raised at meeting on 18/04/19 Horse pub, there are buses LBE obstructing the exit from Chased prior to 11/07/19 meeting Garfield Road partly due to changeovers. Is there a plan for the buses TfL Raised at meeting on 18/04/19 serving the W4 route to be made double decker in peak? There are no plans to introduce double deck buses on route W4 during the peak operation. TfL’s assessment shows that there is no demand for additional capacity. In addition, single deck buses are typically used on roads where there are physical constraints, such as low bridges and other width restrictions. However, if there are any specific concerns relating to capacity, TfL will investigate this further. Please provide details on direction of travel and where this is experienced.

Action completed 22/08/19 At Bush Hill Park and Enfield TfL Raised at meeting on 05/02/19; response from Town stations the information TfL to be chased up (25/04/19). provided on rail replacement bus services is not clear. Chased prior to 11/07/19 meeting

2

Page 11

Action Lead Response Undertake a review of the LBE First phase of work has been commissioned previous bus review and share and a presentation was given at the PTCG a summary of the previous bus meeting on 18/04/19. review with the Group. At next meeting provide Group with update on work including development of scope for next phase. (25/04/19)

Update provided at 11/07/19 meeting.

Action completed 11/07/19 Look into the possibility of on- TfL All on-train PA messages are currently being train announcements at Silver reviewed by Rail for London, TfL Fleet and Street Station which highlight Customer Information and the LOTRAIN project its proximity to North and will be revised as part of the rollout of our Middlesex University Hospital. new trains in 2019. TfL are currently 14/09/17 meeting action. investigating opportunities to input localised information from a borough perspective.

Follow up in due course Is there any possibility of TfL A W10 route test has been undertaken. frequency increases and route Highway works are now being designed and lengthening of the W10 bus, costed. Funding will be subject to TfL approval. which can now be progressed using funding freed up by the An update will be provided at the next Group re-configuration of services in meeting on 17/10/19. outer London? Convene future meeting taking LBE Ongoing action. into account various issues of interest.

3

This page is intentionally left blank Page 13

BRIEFING NOTE

FOR THE ATTENTION OF: Subject / Title: Cllr. Dogan, Cabinet Member for REVIEW OF 2013 ENFIELD BUS Environment REVIEW

For Information and Comment Wards Affected: All

Date: 25/06/2019

Officer Contact Details: Name & Division: Dominic Millen, Environment & Operational Services Telephone: X3398 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Background

1.1 In early 2012 the Council initiated a review of bus services via the Enfield Transport Users’ Group (ETUG). ETUG formed a working party and its draft proposals were presented to a public meeting in April 2013. As a result of feedback and comments received the initial suggestions were modified and the revised plan presented, before the report was finalised in late 2013. The final proposals suggested changes to 29 of the 40 bus services then operating in Enfield.

1.2 Since this there has been limited progress made in taking forward the proposals, mainly due to a lack of support and funding from TfL, while there have also been a number of changes to the operating environment for bus services.

1.3 In response to discussions at the Council’s Public Transport Consultative Group and supported by the Chair of the Group, Cllr Daniel Anderson, it was agreed that there should be a review of the previous Review to assess whether the objectives, assumptions and methodology are still fit for purpose, as well as to provide a scope for future work.

1.4 This work was recently completed by the TAS Partnership and this paper summarises the key findings. It also sets out proposed next steps.

2. Key Findings (detailed summary at Appendix 1)

2.1 With regard to the objectives of the 2013 Review, the assessment acknowledged that whilst the stated objectives are all laudable, the actual likely demand for new links and routes was not considered. There have also been subsequent changes, for example to the way hospital provision is configured, which need to be taken into account.

2.2 The measure of success used when considering the proposals was confined to the changes in the number of buses per hour serving each area and the creation of direct links. This approach does not take into 1

Page 14

account the number of broken links (where an existing journey can no longer be made) which is a key factor for TfL when they consider changes to the network. Once broken links and the related loss of revenue are taken into account the proposals had a significant cost (£6m per year).

2.3 Changes in bus fares (Hopper ticket), falling passenger numbers and reduced funding mean that the bus network is significantly different to when the 2013 Review was undertaken.

2.4 Large scale changes to the network disrupt established travel patterns and thus place at risk a substantial number of passenger journeys. Experience not only in London but elsewhere in the UK has shown that ‘big bang’ network-wide changes lead to severe passenger loss in the short term. Combined with current financial difficulties for TfL this means that incremental adjustments are more likely to be implemented successfully unless developments of significant size, such as at Meridian Water, are involved.

2.5 The 2013 Review would have seen a redistribution of bus services from the east of Enfield, where existing demand is strong, to the west.

2.5 Overall, whilst the 2013 Review contained proposals that would deliver benefits, these would be achieved at the cost of a significant change to current service patterns and established passenger movements. In the present circumstances proposals that put existing passengers and revenue at risk, in the search for an unquantified amount of potential patronage, cannot expect to be viewed favourably.

3. Next Steps

3.1 There are ongoing challenges in respect of the bus network in Enfield, including access to healthcare, low density residential and growth areas, but there are also opportunities, including via new approaches to bus service provision (such as demand response travel), to address these.

3.2 To take this forward, the review of the 2013 Review proposes another phase of work is carried out by external advisors. This would be a data led exercise to identify a series of evidence-based proposals, which address desired outcomes. This should involve close collaboration with TfL.

3.3 However, given that there is not a budget for such a substantial piece of work, the proposed approach is for Council officers to engage closely with TfL to use our combined resources to:  Undertake data gathering and analysis to identify key issues and opportunities for the bus network in Enfield.  Identify a small number of short-term interventions which resolve key pinch points, fill missing links and improve overall coverage.  Develop a longer-term plan to deliver increased bus patronage in Enfield. This will include changing the nature and role of bus services.

3.3 Following the Cabinet Member briefing this approach will be discussed at the Enfield Public Transport Consultative Group meeting on 11th July.

2

Page 15

Appendix 1 – Summary of the Bus Services review (Phase 1) undertaken by the TAS Partnership Limited (Passenger Transport Specialists).

Background:

After a competitive tender process, the TAS Partneship Ltd (TAS) was commissioned in February 2019 by the London Borough of Enfield (LBE) to assess a review of the bus network within the LBE, which was undertaken in 2013. This work involved: a) Assessing the original objectives of the review; b) Assessing the original assumptions of the review; c) Assessing the original methodology of the review; and d) Providing a scoping for a new review.

Four separate Task Notes (reports) where produced.

The 2013 review refers to the Enfield Transport User Group (ETUG) report and suggestions or proposals made by ETUG this relates to the documents prepared by ETUG following the invitation to them from LBE to collate concerns and issues raised by residents regarding the bus network in the LBE. The finalised report was prepared incorporating inputs from LBE and submitted to Transport for London (TfL) by them.

This paper has been produced to summarise (Phase 1) the work undertaken so far by TAS.

Task Note 1: Assessing the Objectives:

The main objective of this Task Note was to:  Assess how well the 2013 report met its objectives;  Assess the current relevance of those objectives; and  Suggest any changes to the objectives. The report concludes: “4.1.1 The stated objectives of the ETUG report are all laudable, but the measure of success used in their achievement is confined to the changes in the number of buses per hour serving each area and the creation of direct links. Much of the rationale behind the ETUG proposals appears to stem from a desire to provide direct links between most parts of the borough. 4.1.2 The report concentrates on ‘routes’ whereas what passengers experience, and what TfL considers in its modelling and evaluation, is the volume of movements between locations using origin and destination data. 4.1.3 Whilst we recognise that interchange introduces an additional element of uncertainty into a journey and is therefore, if required, a disincentive to the use of public transport there appears to have been neither an assessment of the level of demand for the newly created links nor any consideration given to the impact on passengers of breaking existing links. 4.1.4 There is an almost complete lack of detail relating to the way in which ETUG reached its conclusions – the appendices to the main report which we would have expected to contain this supporting evidence are in most cases

3

Page 16 merely a series of tabular representations of the proposed changes in different formats. 4.1.5 The ETUG report was produced in a substantially different environment – at the time bus patronage in London had grown in seven of the eight previous years and there was the assumption that this trend would continue, with additional resource deployed to cope with passenger growth. 4.1.6 Similarly it was accepted that fare levels would continue to rise in line with inflation thus containing the amount of support required. In contrast the reality is that passenger numbers have fallen in each of the past four years and this, combined with the fares freeze, has resulted in TfL facing an accelerating operating loss on its bus services that amounted to £752 million in 2017/18. 4.1.7 The Hopper fare has effectively removed the financial penalty incurred by passengers needing to change bus. This lessens the need to recast services to provide through links unless volumes are high, provided the interchange point is convenient and safe. 4.1.8 In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that TfL responded to the proposals in the manner that it did. Its reaction shows a focus on retaining existing patronage rather than making changes that might deliver growth but behind which there was little in the way of justification. Nevertheless it did identify a few areas in which the ETUG suggestions could address some shortcomings in the network and has made some progress towards their implementation. 4.1.9 Large scale changes to the network disrupt established travel patterns and thus place at risk a substantial number of passenger journeys. Experience not only in London but elsewhere in the UK has shown that ‘big bang’ network-wide changes lead to severe passenger loss in the short term. Combined with the current financial difficulties this means that incremental adjustments are more likely to be implemented successfully unless developments of significant size, such as at Meridian Water, are involved. 4.1.10 There is also a shift in the spatial planning strategy for London, with a new London Plan currently being brought forward, and Enfield where a consultation has been undertaken on a Local Plan which will see changes to housing and employment growth densities and locations.” Task Note 1 recommends: “4.2.1 Any future proposals to TfL will require much more robust preparation, taking into account changes that would be made both within the LBE and in those other boroughs through which the affected services pass. 4.2.2 A more complete understanding of travel patterns through the analysis of bus service data is required, followed by an extension of the TfL ‘demand matching’ in order to identify areas of over and under provision and the potential to reallocate resources in a way that would be cost neutral but revenue beneficial. This should be linked to an assessment of accessibility using TfL’s established tools. 4.2.3 Consequently an initial assessment of the performance of the current network is required in order to provide a sound basis upon which development proposals can be based.”

Task Note 2: Assessing the Proposals:

The objectives of this Task Note where to:  Examine the recommendations of the 2013 report and why they might have been rejected by TfL;  Highlight changes introduced by TfL since the 2013 report; and

4

Page 17

 Highlight changes within and associated with LB Enfield since 2013. The report concludes: “4.1.1 Of the seven new links proposed, only one (Enfield Town to North Middlesex University Hospital) resolves a shortcoming of the existing network. The rationale behind the other suggestions has either been overtaken by events (the through Enfield Town to Arnos Grove link) or was not clearly articulated and justified. The straitened financial circumstances that face TfL at present preclude the introduction of speculative services with no immediately apparent passenger base and / or which break established links, thus explaining why the majority of these suggestions failed to find favour. 4.1.2 The introduction of the Hopper fare has removed the financial penalty from two part journeys, thus much reducing the case for through links between most parts of the borough. The frequency of services and the density of the bus network within the LBE makes interchange less of a challenge than elsewhere, although more work is needed to look at bus to bus interchange, and there are few journeys that cannot be made within the period of validity of a Hopper fare. 4.1.3 In the short term at least, the adjustments to services made as part of the TfL ‘demand matching’ process have overwhelmingly comprised frequency reductions. The initially stated aim of redistributing the saved resources from the central area to outer London appears to have been overtaken by the need to reduce costs and has encompassed frequency reductions in the suburbs too. 4.1.4 Much of the housing development within the LBE focussed either upon the renewal of existing sites (such as Ladderswood) or a change of use of sites with already established demand for travel (Chase Farm Hospital). Only Meridian Water is of a sufficient size to warrant adjustments and additions to the existing network and the much slower than expected rate of progress there on realising the designs has meant that none has been required as yet. 4.1.5 Improvements to rail services, in terms of both frequency enhancements and the introduction of new rolling stock, are likely to see demand for travel on north – south corridors shift away from the bus. East – West corridors where there is no such competition will be much less affected.” Task Note 2 recommends: “4.2.1 Suggestions for service adjustments or enhancements are only likely to receive favourable consideration if they address a quantifiable shortcoming in the network or are made in response to new developments of a substantial size. 4.2.2 Consequently such proposals need to be backed by careful research and a compelling business case. Overall, the probability of achieving success in terms of increased passenger numbers by breaking established through links to achieve new ones is generally low.”

Task Note 3: Assessing the Methodology:

The objectives of this Task Note where to examine the methodology used for the 2013 report and to:  Assess how well it met current relevant guidance, accessibility standards and established best practice;  Assess against TfL methods as used for the Central London review; and  Establish whether the proposed changes really were likely to be cost neutral. The report concludes: “5.1.1 We do not doubt that the ETUG proposals stemmed from a sincere wish to improve the bus network in the LBE. Whilst many of the proposals would 5

Page 18 deliver benefits these are achieved at the cost of a significant change to the current service pattern and the established passenger movements it carries. In the present circumstances a proposal that puts existing passengers and revenue at risk in the search for an unquantified amount of potential patronage cannot expect to be viewed favourably. 5.1.2 It is not surprising that, given that its remit was to focus on the bus network in the LBE, ETUG did not appear to consider in detail the impact of its proposed changes upon provision within neighbouring Boroughs. TfL does not have this luxury – it has to balance the differing priorities and objectives of all the London Boroughs, the targets set by the Mayor of London and its own financial position. Consequently its view of suggested changes will always be from a more strategic standpoint and whilst it may recognise that some deficiencies exist within the LBE it is likely to be the case that some ways of rectifying them would create greater problems elsewhere. 5.1.3 ETUG presented its proposals as being resource neutral. It became clear that this related purely to its calculation of the impact upon the number of vehicles required and that any changes to bus hours and miles (which account for a far greater proportion of operating costs) and change of bus type had not been considered. 5.1.4 TfL’s assessment was that, far from being resource neutral, the ETUG changes, disregarding its proposal to withdraw service 349 in its entirety, would necessitate the inclusion of an extra thirty vehicles in the London bus fleet, equivalent to an additional annual cost of more than £6 million. 5.1.5 We have not had access to the calculations that underpinned this conclusion but believe that TfL’s figures, produced with detailed knowledge of the network, the way in which services are operated, likely contract costs and with a full awareness of what running times are achievable are more likely to be accurate than the estimates produced by ETUG. Moreover in the current economic climate the deployment of additional resources is now very much less likely than when the report was written.” Task Note 3 recommends: “5.2.1 In order to fully assess the performance of the bus network within the LBE and to produce viable proposals for improvements it is necessary to:  Fully understand the existing patterns of travel;  be aware of operational issues that have a negative impact upon service reliability and punctuality;  take a holistic view of the north London bus network so that the resolution of problems within the LBE does not create new problems or move them elsewhere;  recognise that the existing LBE bus network is comprehensive;  acknowledge that action to rectify perceived gaps in provision using conventional bus services is unlikely to be warranted in areas where the resident population is few in number; and  recognise that the environment in which TfL now operates is markedly different to the one that existed when the ETUG proposals were prepared. 5.2.2 Consequently we recommend that a detailed network review, informed by patronage and operational data from TfL, is undertaken.”

Task Note 4: Scoping for Phase 2:

The objective of this Task Note was to use the findings from Task Notes 1 - 3 to outline the scope of further work to identify potential improvements to the LBE bus network. 6

Page 19

The report concludes: “5.1.1 For the LBE the key to producing viable proposals is a keen understanding of the detail of the current network and the production of a plan of incremental changes which all serve to improve on the status quo, both as specific initiatives and as part of a macro or long-term improvement. Experience elsewhere shows that ‘big bang’ alterations to networks negatively impact patronage, consumer confidence and certain routes’ viability and given TfL’s established antipathy to such a practice, wholesale changes as proposed in the ETUG report have very little chance of being accepted. 5.1.2 The environment in which TfL is now operating is substantially different to the conditions that existed at the time when the ETUG report was produced in 2013. There is little prospect of the introduction of services simply to address perceived accessibility issues in areas with little resident population or the movement of resources from areas of high demand to those where it is lower in the search for an equality of provision that would result in a reduction of revenue. 5.1.3 Similarly the introduction of the Hopper fare has removed the cost penalty consideration from journeys that require interchange and will have reduced the demand for through services that link all parts of the borough. However, this is not to say that where demand is high for through travel then any possibility of a through link should be ignored. 5.1.4 We understand that the data held by TfL is substantial but that the process of analysis and evaluation will not be rapid due to its pressure of work. It is, however, vital that it is undertaken thoroughly. In order for proposals for adjustments to the LBE bus network to be considered in a favourable light by TfL they must:  be accompanied by robust supporting data that demonstrates not only the benefits of the proposed change but also that there would be few adverse impacts on other services or other areas;  be likely to lead to patronage increase;  contain details of the terminal and layover arrangements to be employed, ensuring that these accord with current TfL standards and requirements;  be designed such that the proposed route contains only roads suitable for use by buses;  deliver value for money; and  be capable of being delivered in a practical manner.” Task Note 4 recommends: “5.2.1 That data for bus services in the LBE regarding patronage, passenger origins (and interpolated destinations), service reliability and punctuality for a representative period be obtained from TfL. 5.2.2 Its analysis will allow identification of the key links in the network and can be used to undertake a high-level assessment of whether their current frequencies are adequate, require enhancement or could be reduced. A more detailed analysis will be required in order to construct specific and detailed recommendations which satisfy TfL’s service planning criteria. 5.2.3 TfL’s standard format for service design is to create services by joining together key links with similar levels of passenger flows and proper analysis of this will demonstrate where the original justification for individual services remains valid and where adjustments are required. The identification of the latter will be the primary focus when constructing proposals for changes that will deliver improvements to the residents of LBE that are also designed to help TfL contain costs.

7

Page 20

5.2.4 That this work be commissioned as Phase 2 of the LBE’s review of bus services.”

Next Steps (Phase 2):

Subject to funding becoming available, similar to the Phase 1 work, the LBE proposes to carry out a competitive tender process in order to find suitably experienced external advisors to carry out a reappraisal of the bus network, including:  what has been observed so far;  what has been learned with regard to changes since the ETUG report in 2013;  expert understanding of what is acceptable to TfL; and  changes and updates in policy, strategy and operating environment. Going forward, the LBE intends to work more closely with TfL. Offices from the council have already had an initial meeting with TfL, making them aware of our intention to carry out a reappraisal of the bus network in Enfield. A follow up meeting to discuss the scope for Phase 2 work has also been arranged. Working with TfL, we need to agree on clearly defined objectives which, of necessity, include reference to the aims of strategy and policy documents. The focus will be on incremental changes rather than a wholesale ‘big bang’ change. Proposed Methodology: -  obtain data from TfL to provide a clear picture of existing patronage, resources, travel patterns and service performance;  other demographic data as appropriate;  where do people want to travel to and how does that compare against the current network? This will include destinations in neighbouring London Boroughs, Essex and Hertfordshire;  public complaints and requests including those forwarded via elected members;  usage figures for rail and Tube stations to identify those with most interchange potential and unused capacity;  observe known constraints – available study budget, resources, timescales etc.;  use of TfL’s planning tools to calculate accessibility and trip times and  consider effects of any changes on neighbouring authorities; Desired Outcomes: – A series of evidence-based proposals:  to meet set objectives;  to increase (or at least maintain) patronage;  that benefit Enfield residents;  with delivery timescales;  with rationale;  with assessment of details of impacts and  with supporting data.

8

Page 21

Review of Bus Services Phase 1 London Borough of Enfield 30269

July 19

Final Page 22

Quality Assurance

Document Management

Document Title Review of Bus Services Phase 1 Name of File 30269 REP Review of Bus Services Phase 1 Final Last Revision Saved On 12/07/2019 10:38:00 Version Final Click&TypeDraft Click&TypeDraft Prepared by CPS/MM/LD/SW Click&TypeInitials Click&TypeInitials Checked by MM/AJG Click&TypeInitials Click&TypeInitials Approved by SH Click&TypeInitials Click&TypeInitials Issue Date 28/06/2019 Click&TypeDate Click&TypeDate

Copyright

The contents of this document are © copyright The TAS Partnership Limited, with the exceptions set out below. Reproduction in any form, in part or in whole, is expressly forbidden without the written consent of a Director of The TAS Partnership Limited.

Cartography derived from Ordnance Survey mapping is reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HMSO under licence number WL6576 and is © Crown Copyright – all rights reserved.

Other Crown Copyright material, including census data and mapping, policy guidance and official reports, is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under licence number C02W0002869.

The TAS Partnership Limited retains all right, title and interest, including copyright, in or to any of its trademarks, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how including or arising out of this document, or used in connection with the preparation of this document. No licence under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

The TAS Partnership Limited regards the daily and hourly rates that are charged to clients, and the terms of engagement under which any projects are undertaken, as trade secrets, and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The TAS Partnership Limited often uses commercially or personally sensitive data provided under confidentiality agreements by third parties to inform projects, and disclosure of this information could constitute an actionable breach of confidence. This detailed content is therefore likely to be exempt from disclosure under the Act.

Consequently, The TAS Partnership Limited will expect to be consulted before any content of this document is released under a Freedom of Information request.

Guildhall House 59-61 Guildhall Street Preston PR1 3NU Telephone: 01772 204988

[email protected] www.taspartnership.co.uk

Page 23

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 5

1 Introduction and Objectives ...... 11

1.1 Introduction ...... 11 1.2 Objectives ...... 11

2 Meeting the Objectives ...... 13

2.1 Introduction ...... 13 2.2 2013 Report ...... 13 2.3 Improved Access to Hospitals ...... 19 2.4 LBE Housing Regeneration Plans ...... 21 2.5 Schools Transport ...... 25 2.6 Areas of Poor Accessibility ...... 30 2.7 Level Crossing Closures ...... 33 2.8 Standards for Level Crossings...... 34 2.9 Lee Valley Line ...... 35 2.10 Improved Access to Retail and Industrial Parks ...... 37 2.11 TfL Response ...... 40 2.12 Meridian Water ...... 40

3 Relevance of the Objectives ...... 42

3.1 Introduction ...... 42 3.2 Changes to the Operating Environment ...... 42 3.3 Amended Strategic Plans ...... 45 3.4 Improved Access to Hospitals ...... 48 3.5 Impact of Changes to Hospital Services ...... 50 3.6 LBE Housing Regeneration Plans ...... 52 3.7 Schools Transport ...... 54 3.8 Areas of Poor Accessibility ...... 55 3.9 Level Crossing Closures ...... 56 3.10 Improved Access to Retail and Industrial Parks ...... 56

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Contents ▪ 1 Page 24

4 Conclusions of the 2013 Report ...... 57

4.1 Introduction ...... 57 4.2 Creating New Links ...... 57 4.3 Assessment of Proposed New Links - NMUH ...... 57 4.4 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Arnos Grove ...... 58 4.5 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Main Line ...... 58 4.6 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Enfield Island Village ...... 61 4.7 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Whitewebbs and Forty Hall ...... 61 4.8 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Inter-Hospital Services ...... 62 4.9 Outcome ...... 62

5 Bus Related Changes at TfL Since 2013 ...... 63

5.1 Introduction ...... 63 5.2 Hopper Fare ...... 63 5.3 Reductions in Bus Support ...... 63 5.4 Outer London Enhancements ...... 64

6 Changes in Enfield Since 2013 ...... 67

6.1 Introduction ...... 67 6.2 Meridian Water ...... 67 6.3 New Southgate Regeneration ...... 67 6.4 Chase Farm Redevelopment ...... 68 6.5 Enfield Town Centre Redevelopment ...... 68 6.6 Railways ...... 69 6.7 Mini-Holland Cycle Schemes ...... 70

7 The 2013 Methodology ...... 71

7.1 Introduction ...... 71 7.2 Principles of the 2013 Review ...... 71 7.3 Aims of the Service Proposals ...... 72 7.4 Established Travel Patterns ...... 72 7.5 Operating Costs ...... 73 7.6 The Revenue Side of the Equation ...... 73 7.7 Evaluation of the Proposals ...... 73

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Contents ▪ 2 Page 25

8 Comparison with TfL Methodology ...... 74

8.1 TfL Methodology ...... 74 8.2 Demand Matching ...... 75 8.3 Comparison with ETUG Methodology ...... 75

9 Were the Proposals Realistic? ...... 79

9.1 Introduction ...... 79 9.2 TfL Assessment ...... 79 9.3 Responsible Body ...... 80

10 Assessing the Network ...... 83

10.1 Introduction ...... 83 10.2 Understanding the Network ...... 83 10.3 The Operating Environment ...... 83 10.4 Patronage Levels ...... 84 10.5 Accessibility ...... 91 10.6 Connectivity ...... 91

11 Scoping for Phase Two of the Study ...... 93

11.1 Introduction ...... 93 11.2 Approach for Phase 2 of the Work ...... 93 11.3 Deliverability ...... 94 11.4 Relevance of Objectives ...... 94 11.5 Starting the Project ...... 95

12 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 97

12.1 Conclusions ...... 97 12.2 Recommendations ...... 100

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Contents ▪ 3 Page 26 Page 27

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 The TAS Partnership Ltd (TAS) has been commissioned by the London Borough of Enfield (LBE) to assess a review of the bus network within the LBE, which was undertaken in 2013. This work involves assessing the objectives, assumptions and methodology of the original review and scoping a new review.

1.2 This report:

 Assesses how well the 2013 report met its objectives;

 Assesses the current relevance of those objectives;

 Suggests changes to the objectives;

 Examines the recommendations of the 2013 report and why they might have been rejected by TfL;

 Highlights changes introduced by TfL since the 2013 report;

 Highlights changes within and associated with the LBE since 2013;

 Examines the methodology used for the 2013 report to:

 assess how well it met current relevant guidance, accessibility standards and established best practice;

 assess it against TfL methods used for the Central London review; and

 establish whether the proposed changes really were likely to be cost neutral.

1.3 We use our findings to outline the scope of further work to identify potential improvements to the LBE bus network.

2. The 2013 Report

2.1 In early 2012 the LBE initiated a review of bus services in the Borough and, as part of the public consultation process, invited the Enfield Transport Users’ Group (ETUG) to provide details of both its concerns and issues raised by other residents. ETUG formed a working party and produced proposals taking into account the need to comply with the 2012 Guidelines for Planning Bus Services produced by Transport for London (TfL).

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 5 Page 28

2.2 ETUG took into account the six stated objectives of LBE’s bus review:

 improved access to hospitals;

 the needs arising from LBE's regeneration plans;

 the need to serve the Borough’s secondary schools and any needs arising from the expansion of schools;

 improving access to identified areas of particularly low accessibility;

 addressing issues of level crossing closures; and

 improving access to industrial and retail parks.

2.3 ETUG attempted to ensure that the proposed changes were cost neutral by maintaining the overall number of buses allocated to services in the Borough.

3. ETUG’s recommendations and TfL’s response

3.1 The final proposals suggested changes to 29 of the 40 bus services then operating in the LBE, including seven new links, which were:

 Enfield Town to North Middlesex University Hospital (NMUH);

 Enfield Town to Arnos Grove;

 From most Enfield and Haringey stations on the main line to Hertford Road, Fore Street and Tottenham High Road;

 A speedier Enfield Island Village to Enfield Town journey;

 Enfield Town to Crews Hill, Whitewebbs, Capel Manor and Forty Hall;

 North Middlesex University Hospital (NMUH) to Chase Farm Hospital (CFH) via Winchmore Hill; and

 Chase Farm Hospital to Barnet General Hospital (BGH) via Oakwood.

3.2 TfL gave consideration to the proposed changes and concluded that whilst many had some merit they also had large funding implications and a considerable effect on existing travel patterns. To date, only the suggested link from Enfield Town to NMUH has been taken forward and this is still subject to funding being committed.

4. Our Conclusions

4.1 The stated objectives of the ETUG report are all laudable but the extent to which they are achieved was measured only by the change in the number of buses per hour serving each area and the creation of direct links.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 6 Page 29

4.2 The report concentrates on ‘routes’, whereas what passengers experience and what TfL considers in its modelling and evaluation, is the volume of passenger journeys between locations using origin and destination data.

4.3 Whilst the need to change buses can be a disincentive to the use of public transport, there appears to have been neither an assessment of the level of demand for the proposed direct links nor any consideration given to the impact on passengers of breaking existing links.

4.4 The Hopper fare, introduced in 2016, has effectively removed the financial penalty incurred by passengers needing to change bus. This lessens the need to recast services to provide new direct links.

4.5 There is an almost complete lack of detail relating to the way in which ETUG reached its conclusions.

4.6 The ETUG report was produced in a substantially different environment – at the time bus patronage in London had grown in seven of the eight previous years and there was the assumption that this trend would continue, with additional resource deployed to cope with passenger growth.

4.7 Similarly, it was accepted that fare levels would continue to rise in line with inflation thus containing the amount of support required. The reality is that passenger numbers have fallen in each of the past four years and this, combined with the fares freeze, has resulted in TfL facing an accelerating operating loss on its bus services that amounted to £752 million in 2017/18. As such, there is now little prospect of the introduction of services simply to address perceived accessibility issues or the movement of resources from areas of high demand to those where it is lower.

4.8 In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that TfL responded to the proposals in the manner that it did. Its reaction shows a focus on retaining existing patronage rather than making changes that might or might not deliver growth. Nevertheless it did identify a few areas in which the ETUG suggestions could address some shortcomings in the network and has made some progress towards their implementation.

4.9 Large scale changes to the network disrupt established travel patterns and thus place at risk a substantial number of passenger journeys. Experience in London and elsewhere has shown that ‘big bang’ network-wide changes lead to severe passenger loss in the short term. Combined with the current financial difficulties this means that incremental adjustments are more likely to be implemented unless there are new developments of significant size, such as at Meridian Water, involved.

4.10 There has also been a shift in the spatial planning strategy for London, with a new London Plan currently being brought forward and the LBE having consulted on a new Local Plan that will see changes to housing and employment growth densities and locations.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 7 Page 30

4.11 Of the seven new links proposed, only one (Enfield Town to NMUH) resolves a shortcoming of the existing network. The rationale behind the other suggestions have either been overtaken by events (the direct Enfield Town to Arnos Grove link) or was not clearly articulated and justified. The straitened financial circumstances that face TfL at present preclude the introduction of speculative services with no immediately apparent passenger base and / or which break established links, thus explaining why the majority of these suggestions failed to find favour.

4.12 In the short term at least, adjustments to services made as part of the TfL ‘demand matching’ process have overwhelmingly comprised frequency reductions. The initially stated aim of redistributing the saved resources from the central area to outer London appears to have been overtaken by the need to reduce costs and has encompassed frequency reductions in the suburbs too.

4.13 Much of the housing development within the LBE focussed either upon the renewal of existing sites (such as Ladderswood) or a change of use of sites with already established demand for travel (Chase Farm Hospital). Only Meridian Water is of a sufficient size to warrant adjustments and additions to the existing network and the much slower than expected rate of progress there has meant that none have been required yet.

4.14 Improvements to rail services, in terms of both frequency enhancements and the introduction of new rolling stock, are likely to see demand for travel on north – south corridors shift away from the bus.

4.15 It is not surprising that, given that its remit was to focus on the bus network in the LBE, ETUG did not appear to consider the impact of its proposed changes upon provision within neighbouring Boroughs. TfL has to balance the differing priorities and objectives of all the London Boroughs, the targets set by the Mayor of London and its own financial position. Consequently, its view of suggested changes will always be from a more strategic standpoint.

4.16 ETUG presented its proposals as being resource neutral based upon the overall number of vehicles required. Changes to bus hours and miles (which account for a far greater proportion of operating costs) and change of bus type were not considered. TfL’s assessment was that, far from being resource neutral, the ETUG changes would necessitate the inclusion of an extra thirty vehicles in the London bus fleet, equivalent to an additional annual cost of more than £6 million. We believe that TfL’s figures, produced with detailed knowledge of the network, the way in which services are operated, likely contract costs and with a full awareness of what running times are achievable are more likely to be accurate than the estimates produced by ETUG.

5. Recommendations

5.1 The key to producing viable proposals is a keen understanding of the detail of the current network and the production of a plan of incremental changes which

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 8 Page 31

serve to improve the status quo, both as specific initiatives and as part of a macro or long-term improvement. Experience elsewhere shows that ‘big bang’ alterations to networks negatively impact patronage, consumer confidence and route viability. Given TfL’s established antipathy to such a practice, wholesale changes, as proposed in the ETUG report, have very little chance of being accepted.

5.2 We understand that the data held by TfL is substantial but that the process of analysis and evaluation of LBE proposals based on this data would not be rapid due to its pressure of work. However, in order for proposals to be considered in a favourable light by TfL they must:

 be accompanied by robust supporting data that demonstrates not only the benefits of the proposed change but also that there would be few adverse impacts on other services or areas;

 be likely to lead to patronage increase;

 contain details of the terminal and layover arrangements to be employed, ensuring that these accord with current TfL standards and requirements;

 be designed such that the proposed routes contains only roads suitable for use by buses;

 deliver value for money; and

 be capable of being delivered in a practical manner.

5.3 To achieve this, we recommend that:

 Any future proposals to TfL will require much more robust preparation, taking into account changes that would be made both within the LBE and in those other boroughs through which the affected services pass.

 A more complete understanding of travel patterns through the analysis of bus service data based on TfL ‘demand matching’ is required, in order to identify areas of over and under provision and the potential to reallocate resources in a way that would be cost neutral but revenue beneficial. This should be linked to an assessment of accessibility using TfL’s established tools.

 An initial assessment of the performance of the current network is required in order to provide a sound basis upon which development proposals can be based.

 Suggestions for service adjustments or enhancements should address quantifiable shortcomings in the network or be made in response to new developments of a substantial size.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 9 Page 32

 Proposals need to be backed by careful research and a compelling business case.

 In order to fully assess the performance of the bus network within the LBE and to produce viable proposals for improvements, it is necessary to:

 fully understand the existing patterns of travel;

 be aware of operational issues that have a negative impact upon service reliability and punctuality;

 take an holistic view of the north London bus network so that the resolution of problems within the LBE does not create new problems or move them elsewhere;

 recognise that the existing LBE bus network is currently comprehensive;

 acknowledge that action to rectify perceived gaps in provision using conventional bus services is unlikely to be warranted in areas where the resident population is few in number; and

 recognise that the environment in which TfL now operates is markedly different to the one that existed when the ETUG proposals were prepared.

5.4 We recommend that a detailed network review is undertaken, informed by patronage and operational data from TfL, the analysis of which will allow identification of the key links in the network and can be used to undertake a high-level assessment of whether current service frequencies are adequate, require enhancement or could be reduced. A more detailed analysis will be required in order to construct specific and detailed recommendations which deliver improvements for the residents of the LBE, satisfy TfL’s service planning criteria and help it to contain costs.

5.5 Above all it is recommended that TfL be brought in as a partner in the review from the start.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 10 Page 33

1Introduction and Objectives 1

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The TAS Partnership Ltd (TAS) has been commissioned by the London Borough of Enfield (LBE) to assess a review of the bus network within the LBE, which was undertaken in 2013. This work involves:

a) Assessing the original objectives of the review;

b) Assessing the original assumptions of the review;

c) Assessing the original methodology of the review; and

d) Providing a scoping for a new review.

1.1.2 It should be noted that in this report where reference is made to the ETUG report and suggestions or proposals made by ETUG this relates to the documents prepared by ETUG following the invitation to them from LBE to collate concerns and issues raised by residents regarding the bus network in the LBE. The finalised report was prepared incorporating inputs from LBE and submitted to TfL by them.

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 The main objectives of this report are to:

 Assess how well the 2013 report met its objectives;

 Assess the current relevance of those objectives;

 Suggest any changes to the objectives;

 Examine the recommendations of the 2013 report and why they might have been rejected by TfL;

 Highlight changes introduced by TfL since the 2013 report;

 Highlight changes within and associated with LBE since 2013;

 Examine the methodology used for the 2013 report to:

 assess how well it met current relevant guidance, accessibility standards and established best practice;

 assess against TfL methods as used for the Central London review; and

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Introduction and Objectives ▪ 11 Page 34

 establish whether the proposed changes really were likely to be cost neutral.

 Use the findings to outline the scope of further work to identify potential improvements to the LBE bus network.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Introduction and Objectives ▪ 12 Page 35

2Meeting the Objectives 2

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The section covers how well the 2013 report met the objectives set. Our scoring criteria is:

 4 – meets the objective completely;

 3 – meets most of the objective with few shortcomings;

 2 – meets some of the objective but has some shortcomings;

 1 – meets some of the objective but has substantial shortcomings;

 0 – meets none of the objectives.

2.2 2013 Report

2.2.1 In early 2012 the LBE initiated a review of bus services in the Borough and, as part of the public consultation process, invited the Enfield Transport Users’ Group (ETUG) to provide details of both its concerns and issues raised by other residents. ETUG formed a working party and its draft proposals were presented to a public meeting in April 2013. As a result of feedback and comments received the initial suggestions were modified and the revised plan presented to a second public meeting in June 2013. Further adjustments followed.

2.2.2 ETUG produced its proposals taking into account the need to comply with the 2012 Guidelines for Planning Bus Services produced by Transport for London (TfL). This was created to support delivery of the then Mayor’s Transport Strategy, which contained the vision that:

“London’s transport system should excel among those of global cities, providing access to opportunities for all its people and enterprises, achieving the highest environmental standards and leading the world in its approach to tackling urban transport challenges of the 21st century.”

2.2.3 Six goals are set out for the achievement of this vision:

 Supporting economic development and population growth;

 Enhancing the quality of life for all Londoners;

 Improving the safety and security of all Londoners;

 Improving transport opportunities for all Londoners;

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 13 Page 36

 Reducing transport’s contribution to climate change and improving its resilience and

 Supporting delivery of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and its legacy.

2.2.4 TfL interpreted this as requiring the planning of a network of bus services that is:

 Frequent, with adequate capacity for the peaks;

 Reliable, providing even service intervals when frequencies are high and running to time when they are low;

 Simple, easy for passengers to understand and remember and well- integrated with other public transport;

 Comprehensive, providing service to all areas and recognising the needs of local people from all sections of the community; and

 Cost-effective, with options tested to ensure that they offer the best value for money within the available budget.

2.2.5 Consequently TfL aimed to keep the network under regular review to ensure that it:

“... caters for growth in population and employment, while maintaining ease of use, attractive frequencies and adequate capacity, reliable services, good coverage and good interchange with other modes. All proposals for change will be appraised to ensure that they deliver good value for money and that the funds available are being invested in optimum service improvements.”1

2.2.6 ETUG stated that it kept these considerations in mind when developing its proposals but also took into account the Borough’s six stated objectives of LBE’s bus review:

 improved access to hospitals;

 the needs arising from LBE's regeneration plans;

 the need to serve the Borough’s secondary schools and any needs arising from the expansion of schools;

 improving access to identified areas of particularly low accessibility;

 addressing issues of level crossing closures and

 improving access to Industrial and Retail Parks.

1 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-service-planning-guidelines.pdf

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 14 Page 37

2.2.7 In addition to these objectives specific attention was paid to two further considerations:

 the impact on interchange at railway stations and

 an assessment of the impact on each of the 21 electoral wards

2.2.8 Finally ETUG attempted, as far as possible, to ensure that the proposed changes did not result in an increase in the overall number of buses allocated to services in Enfield. This was equated with being cost neutral, but ignored vehicle type as well as possible increases changes in operating hours and mileage.

2.2.9 The final proposals suggested changes to 29 of the 40 bus services then operating in the LBE. TfL gave consideration to the proposed changes and concluded that whilst many had some merit they also had large funding implications and a considerable effect on existing travel patterns. In this respect it is crucial to be aware that few of the services considered in the 2013 study operated purely within the LBE and that this remains the case today as shown in Table 2 (only those services shaded in green (six of 38) are wholly contained within the LBE).

2.2.10 Most cross-boundary services operate into Haringey (primarily to Wood Green and Turnpike Lane), Barnet (primarily Finchley, High Barnet and Whetstone) and Hertfordshire (primarily Waltham Cross and Potters Bar).

2.2.11 Dedicated school bus services are shown in Table 1. ETUG did not appear to consider them in their report and proposed no changes to them. We have treated them in the same way, taking it that they exist because the children who use them are not able to make their journey on the public service network or travel in such numbers that, if they did, they would cause issues of capacity.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 15 Page 38

Table 1: School Bus Services

Service From To Via PVR Morning Afternoon Journeys Journeys 616 Winchmore Hill Edmonton Green Southgate, Palmers 2 2 2 Green, Great Cambridge Road 617 Turnpike Lane St Ignatius Great Cambridge 2 2 2 College Road 628, 688 Southgate Jews’ Free Whetstone, Mill Hill, 6 6 7 (MW), School, Edgware 6 (TuThF) Kingsbury 629 Wood Green St Ignatius Palmers Green, 2 2 2 Station College Winchmore Hill, Enfield Town 692, 699 Winchmore Hill Dame Alice Southgate, 3 3 3 Owen’s School, Cockfosters Potters Bar

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 16

Table 2: Bus Services Operating in LBE

Service Route Also Serves Barnet Brent City of Hackney Haringey Islington Lambeth Waltham Herts London Forest 34 Barnet Church - Walthamstow Bus Station   102 Edmonton Green BS - Brent Cross   121 Enfield Island Village - Turnpike Lane Station  125 Finchley, St Mary's Church - Winchmore Hill  141 Palmers Green – London Bridge Station      144 Edmonton Green BS - Muswell Hill, Broadway  149 Edmonton Green BS – London Bridge Station      Page 39 184 Barnet, Bells Hill - Turnpike Lane Station   191 Edmonton Green BS - Brimsdown Station 192 Enfield, Little Park Gardens - Tottenham Hale BS  217 Turnpike Lane BS - Waltham Cross BS   221 Edgware - Turnpike Lane BS   231 Turnpike Lane BS - Enfield Chase Station  232 Turnpike Lane BS - Brentfield, Mitchell Way    251 Edgware - Arnos Grove  259 Edmonton Green BS – Kings Cross    279 Manor House Station - Waltham Cross BS   298 Potters Bar Station - Arnos Grove Station  299 Cockfosters Station - Muswell Hill  307 Barnet Hospital - Brimsdown Station  313 Potters Bar - Chingford Station  

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 17

Service Route Also Serves Barnet Brent City of Hackney Haringey Islington Lambeth Waltham Herts London Forest 317 Enfield, Little Park Gardens - Waltham Cross BS  318 North Middlesex Hospital - Stamford Hill   327 Waltham Cross - Elsinge Estate - Waltham Cross  329 Turnpike Lane BS - Enfield Little Park Gardens  349 Ponders End – Stamford Hill   377 Oakwood Station - Ponders End Bus Garage 382 Mill Hill East - Southgate  399 Hadley Wood Station - Barnet, The Spires  444 Turnpike Lane BS - Chingford Station   Page 40 491 Waltham Cross BS - North Middlesex Hospital  610 Luton - Hatfield - Potters Bar - Cockfosters  611 Hatfield - Potters Bar - Cockfosters - Enfield  W4 Oakthorpe Park - Tottenham Hale, Ferry Road  W6 Edmonton Green - Southgate W8 Chase Farm Hospital - Pickett's Lock Centre W9 Chase Farm Hospital - Southgate Station W10 Enfield - Crews Hill

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 18 Page 41

2.3 Improved Access to Hospitals

2.3.1 At the time of the ETUG report, acute health care services for residents of the LBE were primarily located at Chase Farm Hospital (CFH), with alternative provision at Barnet and North Middlesex University Hospitals (NMUH), although proposals to relocate Maternity Services to Barnet and to downgrade the CFH Accident and Emergency Department to an Urgent Care Centre were well advanced. These changes were implemented in November and December 2013 respectively.

2.3.2 Statistics dating from 2011/122 reveal that, at that time, 68% of the 350,000 annual hospital attendances by LBE residents were at CFH, with 20% at NMUH and 12% at Barnet. It was estimated at the time that some 45,000 (19%) of the LBE residents attending CFH each year would have to travel to Barnet Hospital instead after the reorganisation. In reality it appears that more patients have diverted to NMUH.

2.3.3 ETUG made various proposals to improve services to hospitals and these are set out below in Table 3. It was not, however, spelt out exactly how the service to hospitals would improve and what new direct links would be formed.

2 TfL presentation to ETUG ‘Buses and Hospitals LB Enfield’ December 2014

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 19 Page 42

Table 3: ETUG Proposed Action – Hospital Access

Service Route ETUG Proposed Action Turnpike Lane BS - Waltham Increased frequency to replace withdrawn 317 and 217 Cross BS curtailed 231 Southern terminus relocated to NMUH. Extended Turnpike Lane BS - Enfield from Enfield Chase Station to Waltham Cross BS via 231 Chase Station CFH, Carterhatch Lane and Hertford Road Barnet Hospital - Brimsdown Reduced frequency due to the changes to services 307 Station 191, 377, 491 and W9 Potters Bar Dame Alice Owen's Diverted to run via Bush Hill Park between Ponders 313 School - Chingford Station End and Enfield Town Enfield, Little Park Gardens - 317 Waltham Cross BS Withdrawn North Middlesex Hospital - Amended to operate NMUH to CFH via Winchmore 318 Stamford Hill Hill, Grange Park, Worlds End and Chase Side Turnpike Lane BS - Enfield Extend to CFH. Reduced frequency in light of 329 Little Park Gardens changes to 141 and W10 Extend from Oakwood to Barnet General Hospital. Oakwood Station - Ponders Divert via CFH between Worlds End and Enfield 377 End Bus Garage Town to replace the northern section of W9 Oakthorpe Park - Tottenham W4 Hale, Ferry Road Extend from Oakthorpe Park to NMUH Withdrawn. CFH to Enfield Town section covered by Chase Farm Hospital - diverted 377, Grange Park and Winchmore Hill by W9 Southgate Station new 318

2.3.4 TfL’s analysis of the changes that occurred following the hospital reorganisation were contained in its June 2016 presentation ‘Enfield Bus Review – Summary of Outcomes’. This revealed that there had been an increase in trips at NMUH and a decrease in trips at CFH, but that the scale of the change was not sufficient to necessitate radical network changes. Consequently it identified the following changes as potentially justifiable:

 Increase the frequency of service W10 from one to two buses per hour and extend the route to operate Crews Hill – Enfield Town – NMUH (the route to be followed was not specified) at an estimated annual cost of £738,000.

 Increase the frequency of service 491 from four to five buses per hour at an estimated annual cost of £348,800.

2.3.5 The enhancement of the W10 has been agreed in principle but the funding is still to be confirmed. However, the frequency of service 491 was reduced from four to three buses per hour in June 2018.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 20 Page 43

2.4 LBE Housing Regeneration Plans

2.4.1 ETUG identified a total of eighteen regeneration sites, of which six (in italics in Table 5) were classified as ‘smaller’, none having more than thirty homes planned and three having fewer than ten. These will have no material effect upon the established demand for bus travel.

2.4.2 In contrast some of the other sites are substantial – Alma Estate will provide almost 1,000 new homes, shops, a medical centre and a community facility, with Phase I due for completion in February 2020. Others (Highmead, Cat Hill and Carterhatch Lane for example) are already completed. However it is only at Meridian Water where there will be a significant addition to the housing stock with the Alma Estate and Ladderswood projects being renewals of existing developments.

2.4.3 The regeneration sites where service levels would change under the ETUG proposals are listed in Table 5. Where the proposed buses per hour figure is accompanied by an asterisk this denotes that the proposed service would be operated by double deck buses rather than the single decks used at present, thus increasing its capacity.

2.4.4 Under the ETUG proposals five of the large sites would see an increase in the number of buses per hour and six would see a reduction. Of these two (Cat Hill and Carterhatch Lane) would lose only one bus per hour and at Enfield Town (down from 57.5 buses per hour to 51) the remaining services are still so frequent that the fall in provision is likely to be imperceptible.

2.4.5 The other three sites are more seriously affected with a service reduction of 21% at Ladderswood, 33% at Highmead and 36% at Electric Quarter. ETUG acknowledged that a site as large as Meridian Water would require additional investment.

2.4.6 TfL’s analysis of the service changes required to accommodate areas of regeneration was contained in the June 2016 presentation ‘Enfield Bus Review – Summary of Outcomes’. It focused on Meridian Water as the only substantial new development and its anticipated action comprised:

 Extension of service W6 to Picketts Lock at an annual cost of £500,000;

 Diversion of service W8 from Picketts Lock in order to facilitate extension to Meridian Water at an annual cost of £925,000, with an option to further extend to Tottenham Hale if demand is sufficient at an additional cost of £655,000 a year.

 Introduction of a new service operating at a frequency of six buses per hour between Meridian Water and Tottenham Hale at a cost of £1,200,000 a year.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 21 Page 44

 Diversion of service 444 through the Meridian Water site at a cost of £267,000 a year.

 Service 341 (Waterloo to Northumberland Park, Angel Road Superstores) curtailed to terminate at Northumberland Park station and service 476 (Euston to Northumberland Park station) extended to Meridian Water at an annual cost of £510,000.

Table 4: ETUG Proposed Action – Regeneration Plans

Service Route ETUG Proposed Action Enfield, Little Park Gardens - Edmonton Green to Tottenham Hale section 192 Tottenham Hale BS withdrawn and replaced by amended W8 Edmonton Green BS - Kings Extend via Lansdowne Road and Northumberland 259 Cross Park to Meridian Water Northumberland Park, Tesco Amend northern terminus to Northumberland Park 341 - Waterloo Station Route amended to commence from Lee Valley W6 Edmonton Green - Southgate Leisure Centre (in place of W8) Amended to operate between Enfield Town (Little Chase Farm Hospital - Park Gardens) and Tottenham Hale via Meridian W8 Pickett's Lock Centre Water.

Table 5: ETUG Proposed Action – Impact on LBE Regeneration Sites

Site Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per Service Hour Service Hour Ponders End, Electric Quarter 191 6 191 5 313 0 313 3 349 7.5 349 0 377 2 377 0 491 4 491 4 Total 19.5 12 Ponders End, Alma Estate 121 0 121 5 191 6 191 5 313 3 313 3 491 4 491 4 Total 13 17 Meridian Water 192 6 192 0 444 0 444 4 W8 0 W8 6 Total 6 10 Highmead 191 0 191 5

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 22 Page 45

Site Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per Service Hour Service Hour 349 7.5 349 0 Total 7.5 5 Ladderswood 141 9.25 141 9.25 232 3 232 3* 298 3 298 0 299 4 299 4 329 9 329 6 W10 0 W10 4 Total 28.25 22.25 Enfield Town 121 6 121 10 191 6 191 0 192 6 192 6 231 4 231 4 307 6 307 5 313 3 313 3 317 3 317 0 329 9 329 6 377 2 377 0 491 0 491 4 W8 7.5 W8 6 W9 4 W9 3 W10 1 W10 4 Total 57.5 51 Cat Hill, Ebony Crescent 121 6 121 5 125 6 125 6 298 3 298 3 299 4 299 0 307 6 307 5 377/W9 0 313 3 389/399 0 317 2 Total 25 24 Southgate Town Hall 121 6 121 5 141 0 141 9.25 329 9 329 6 Total 15 20.25

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 23 Page 46

Site Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per Service Hour Service Hour New JSC Ordnance Road 121 6 121 5 191 0 191 5 231 0 231 4 327 2 327 3 Total 8 17 Southgate College Expansion 121 6 121 5 125 6 125 6 298 3 298 3 299 4 299 4 389/399 0 389/399 2 W6 6 W6 6* W9 4 W9 0 W10 0 W10 4 Total 29 30 Carterhatch Depot 191 6 191 0 217 5 217 6 231 0 231 4 317 3 317 0 327 0 327 3 Total 14 13 Parsonage Lane W9 4 W9 3 Total 4 3 Forty Hall W10 0 W10 2 Total 0 2 Lavender Hill, Chase Farm 231 0 231 4 313 3 313 3 318N 0 318N 3 329 0 329 6 W8 7.5 W8 0 W9 4 W9 3 Total 14.5 19 St George's Road 191 6 191 0 231 0 231 4 W10 1 W10 2 Total 7 6

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 24 Page 47

Site Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per Service Hour Service Hour Tudor Crescent 231 0 231 4 313 3 313 3 318N 0 318N 3 329 0 329 6 W8 7.5 W8 0 Total 10.5 16 Jasper Close 121 6 121 5 191 6 191 5 231 0 231 4 327 0 327 3 Total 12 17

2.5 Schools Transport

2.5.1 Due to the intensity of the local bus network there are few dedicated school bus services operating in the LBE and ETUG did not consider them when planning and assessing its proposals. Instead it concentrated on the level of provision afforded by bus services available to the general public on which pupils could travel to and from school.

2.5.2 At the time that the ETUG proposals were finalised Ark John Keats Academy on Bell Lane, Enfield did not exist (it accepted its first secondary age pupils in September 2014) and provision at the following six schools was unchanged:

 Edmonton County School, Little Bury Street, Edmonton;

 Enfield County Lower School, Rosemary Avenue, Enfield;

 Heron Hall Academy, Queensway, Ponders End;

 Oasis Academy, Kinetic Crescent, Enfield Lock;

 St Anne's Catholic High Lower School, London Road, Enfield; and

 St Ignatius' College RC Secondary School, Turkey Street, Enfield

2.5.3 Those secondary schools where the service levels changed under ETUG’s proposals are listed in Table 6. Where the proposed buses per hour figure is accompanied by an asterisk this denotes that the proposed service would be operated by double deck buses rather than the single decks used at present, thus increasing its capacity.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 25 Page 48

2.5.4 Eight of the 17 affected schools would see service levels increased and nine would experience a reduction. Some reductions are minimal (Latymer Secondary School is served by 22 rather than 22.5 buses per hour) and at other points the remaining services are still so frequent that the fall in provision is likely to be imperceptible (the schools in the centre of Enfield Town would see the current 57.5 buses per hour fall to 51).

2.5.5 The remaining five schools suffer a greater impact as shown in Table 7 with four seeing reductions of between 12% and 17% in the number of buses per hour and Nightingale Academy having its service almost halved.

Table 6: ETUG Proposed Action – Impact on LBE Secondary Schools

Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per School Service Hour Service Hour 231 0 231 4 318 0 318 4 Aylward Academy, Windmill Road, Edmonton W4 0 W4 6 W6 6 W6 6* Total 6 20 121 6 121 5 191 6 191 5 217 5 217 6 Bishop Stopford's C of E School, Brick Lane, Enfield 231 0 231 4 307 6 307 5 317 3 317 0 327 0 327 3 Total 26 28 232 3 232 3*

Broomfield Secondary School, Wilmer Way, Arnos 298 3 298 0 Grove 299 4 299 4 W10 0 W10 4 Total 10 11 191 6 191 0 231 0 231 4 Chase Community Secondary School, Churchbury 329 0 329 6 Lane, Enfield W8 7.5 W8 0 W10 1 W10 2 Total 14.5 12 192 6 192 6

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 26 Page 49

Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per School Service Hour Service Hour 217 5 217 6 231 4 231 4 Edmonton County Secondary Upper School, Great 313 0 313 3 Cambridge Road, Enfield 377 2 377 0 491 4 491 4 Total 21 23 121 6 121 10 191 6 191 0 192 6 192 6 231 4 231 4 307 6 307 5 313 3 313 3 Enfield County Upper School, Holly Walk, Enfield 317 3 317 0 329 9 329 6 377 2 377 0 491 0 491 4 W8 7.5 W8 6 W9 4 W9 3 W10 1 W10 4 Total 57.5 51 121 6 121 10 191 6 191 0 192 6 192 6 231 4 231 4 307 6 307 5 313 3 313 3 Enfield Grammar Lower & Upper School, Market Place, 317 3 317 0 Enfield 329 9 329 6 377 2 377 0 491 0 491 4 W8 7.5 W8 6 W9 4 W9 3 W10 1 W10 4 Total 57.5 51 Highlands Secondary School, Worlds End Lane, Enfield 121 6 121 5

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 27 Page 50

Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per School Service Hour Service Hour 125 6 125 6 307 6 307 5 318 0 318 3 377 2 377 0 W9 0 W9 3 Total 20 22 121 6 121 10 191 6 191 0 217 5 217 6 231 4 231 4 Kingsmead School, Southbury Road, Enfield 307 6 307 5 313 3 313 0 317 3 317 0 491 0 491 4 Total 33 29 217 5 217 6

Latymer Secondary School, Haselbury Road, 231 4 231 4 Edmonton W6 6 W6 6* W8 7.5 W8 6 Total 22.5 22 191 0 191 5 217 5 217 6 231 0 231 4 Lea Valley Academy, Bullsmoor Lane, Enfield 317 3 317 0 327 2 327 3 491 4 491 4 Total 14 22 191 6 191 5 349 7.5 349 0 Nightingale Academy, Turin Road, Edmonton W6 0 W6 6 W8 7.5 W8 0 Total 21 11 121 0 121 5 Oasis Academy, South Street, Ponders End 191 6 191 5 313 3 313 3

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 28 Page 51

Existing ETUG Proposed Buses per Buses per School Service Hour Service Hour 349 7.5 349 0 491 4 491 4 Total 20.5 17 121 6 121 5 298 3 298 3 299 4 299 0 Southgate Secondary School, Sussex Way, Barnet 307 6 307 5 W9 2 377 3 389/399 0 389/399 2 Total 21 18 121 6 121 5 141 0 141 9.25 St Anne’s Catholic High Upper School, Oakthorpe 232 3 232 3* Road, Palmers Green 329 9 329 6 W6 6 W6 6* Total 24 29.25 125 0 125 6 141 0 141 9.25 Winchmore Secondary School, Laburnum Grove, 318 0 318 3 Winchmore Hill 329 9 329 6 W6 6 W6 6* Total 15 30.25

Table 7: LBE Secondary Schools with Reduced Service under ETUG Proposal

School Buses per Hour % Reduction Current Proposed Reduction Kingsmead School 33 29 -4 -12% Southgate Secondary School 21 18 -3 -14% Chase Community Secondary School 14.5 12 -2.5 -17% Oasis Academy (South Street) 20.5 17 -3.5 -17% Nightingale Academy 21 11 -10 -48%

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 29 Page 52

2.6 Areas of Poor Accessibility

2.6.1 Enfield is divided into 21 electoral wards, which the ETUG report indicated are further divided into sectors, which we have interpreted as equivalent to the super output areas used by the Office for National Statistics. ETUG, working with a combination of absolute population and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), identified a total of 12 sectors spread across nine wards as priority areas requiring improvements in accessibility as shown in Table 8.

2.6.2 IMD is a measure of relative deprivation used to rank neighbourhoods across the UK. Deprivation is essentially defined as ‘a lack of…’ and the IMD is intended to offer multidimensional information on material living conditions in an area or neighbourhood based on a ‘lack of’ living necessities causing an unfulfilled social or economic need, relative to the rest of the country3. In order to resolve the accessibility issues that it identified ETUG proposed adjustments to ten services as shown in Table 9.

Table 8: ETUG Priority Areas for Accessibility Improvement

Index of Proposed Priority Ward and Census Sector Population Multiple for Improvement Deprivation in Accessibility Chase – Sector 1 1,535 19.29 8 Chase – Sector 4 1,554 35.17 4 Chase – Sector 8 1,439 33.9 5 Cockfosters – Sector 3 1,702 6.51 11 Edmonton Green – Sector 5 1,553 45.76 1 Grange – Sector 3 1,344 9.33 10 Lower Edmonton – Sector 6 1,614 37.87 2 Southgate – Sector 5 1,668 6.36 12 Town – Sector 8 1,639 8.68 9 Turkey Street – Sector 6 1,482 26.65 6 Upper Edmonton - Sector 1 1,420 41.49 3 Upper Edmonton - Sector 5 1,378 28.01 7 Total Population with Low Accessibility 18,328

3 http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 30 Page 53

Table 9: ETUG Proposed Actions – Tackling Poor Accessibility

Service Route ETUG Proposed Action Finchley, St Mary's Church - Extend from current terminus at Winchmore Hill to 125 Winchmore Hill Sainsbury's Tottenhall Road - London 141 Bridge Station Extend from Palmers Green to Winchmore Hill Turnpike Lane BS - 232 Brentfield, Mitchell Way Convert to double deck Potters Bar Station - Arnos 298 Grove Station Amend to operate between Potters Bar and Southgate Cockfosters Station - 299 Muswell Hill Amend to operate between Southgate and Muswell Hill Waltham Cross - Elsinge 327 Estate - Waltham Cross Route extended to serve Hoe Lane and Ordnance Road Combined with service 399 and extended to Southgate 389 Barnet - Underhill Station via Cockfosters and Reservoir Road, Combined with service 398 (Barnet - Underhill) and Hadley Wood Station - extended to Southgate Station via Cockfosters and 399 Barnet, The Spires Reservoir Road, Divert from existing route to serve the Tesco Extra Turnpike Lane BS - store on Glover Drive and the residential area of Upper 444 Chingford Station Edmonton around Stockton Road Increase to operate over most of the day on a 15- minute headway from Arnos Grove over the current 298 route to Southgate, then the current W9 route to Winchmore Hill Station then via Green Lanes and Park Avenue to Enfield Town. Two buses per hour extend to Crews Hill Station one out via Clay Hill and returning via Whitewebbs, one out via Whitewebbs, returning W10 Enfield - Crews Hill via Clay Hill

2.6.3 TfL has an established procedure for measuring public transport accessibility levels (PTALS), which at the time the ETUG report was written was contained in guidance dating from April 2010.4 This summarises PTALS as

“…….a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to the public transport network, taking into account walk access time and service availability.”

2.6.4 PTALS is essentially a way of measuring the density of the public transport network at any location within Greater London and is based on a methodology developed by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in 1992. The original model has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and has been agreed by the London Borough-led PTAL development group as the most appropriate model for use across London.

4 https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels/PTAL-methodology.pdf

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 31 Page 54

2.6.5 Walk times are calculated from specified point(s) of interest to all public transport access points: bus stops, railway stations, light rail stations, Tube stations and Tramlink halts, within pre-defined catchments. The PTAL then incorporates a measure of service frequency by calculating an average waiting time based on the frequency of services at each public transport access point. A reliability factor is added and the total access time is calculated. A measure known as an Equivalent Doorstep Frequency (EDF) is then produced for each point. These are summed for all routes within the catchment and the PTALs for the different modes (bus, rail, etc.) are then added to give a single value.

2.6.6 PTAL is categorized in six levels, numbered one to six, where six represents a high level of accessibility and one a low level of accessibility. Levels one and six have been further sub-divided into two sub-levels to provide greater clarity. The measure therefore reflects:

 Walking time from the point of interest to the public transport access points;

 The reliability of the service modes available;

 The number of services available within the catchment; and

 The level of service at the public transport access points - i.e. average waiting time.

2.6.7 It does not consider:

 The speed or utility of accessible services;

 Crowding, including the ability to board services; or,

 Ease of interchange.

2.6.8 The PTAL methodology was developed for London where a dense integrated public transport network means that nearly all destinations can be reached within a reasonable amount of time. Research using the ATOS (Access to Opportunities and Services) methodology shows that there is a strong correlation between PTALs and the time taken to reach key services – i.e. high rated PTAL areas generally have good access to services and low rated PTAL areas have poor access to services.

2.6.9 Thus neither of the measures considered by ETUG have any bearing on the level of accessibility as measured by TfL and it is difficult to promote the ETUG methodology as being superior to that employed by TfL. However TfL did

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 32 Page 55

identify two areas within the LBE where accessibility standards were at a level where some remedial action was desirable. These were:

 poor connectivity from Winchmore Hill to the Edmonton and Silver Street areas; and

 a lack of direct services to the Brimsdown and Mollison Avenue areas of north east Enfield.

2.6.10 TfL estimates that, in Enfield, 95% of residents are within 400 metres of the network (equivalent to five minutes walking time) and virtually all are within an eight minute walk limit, these figures being similar to the London Borough average.

2.6.11 However in order to address the perceived issues scheme options were tested using services 125, 318 and W10 to improve connectivity and services 121, 307, 377, 491 & W6 to improve access to Mollison Avenue. This led to TfL producing two proposals:

a) Divert service W10 via Queen Elizabeth Stadium on Carterhatch Lane and extend from the existing terminus at Enfield Town via Enfield Chase Station, World’s End, Winchmore Hill Station and Hedge Lane to NMUH (TfL would not agree to the extension of service W10 from its current terminus at Golf Ride to Crews Hill Station as its assessment is that there is no safe place for buses to turn and layover at that location).

b) Operate service 491 over its existing route between Waltham Cross and Ponders End High Street and then follow the route of service 377 to Oakwood via Bush Hill Park, Enfield Town, World’s End and Lonsdale Drive to Oakwood.

2.7 Level Crossing Closures

2.7.1 At present there are two level crossings in the LBE – one at Enfield Lock Station and one at Brimsdown Station, but no bus services are routed across the latter at present. A third level crossing on this line at Northumberland Park Station (just over the border into the London Borough of Haringey) was closed in July 2017.

2.7.2 At both Enfield Lock and Brimsdown there are underpasses that can be used by pedestrians and cyclists when the barriers are down. Both are quite narrow and have steep ramps that do not meet DDA standards, but the Brimsdown underpass is slightly wider and better lit than the one at Enfield Lock.

2.7.3 At the time the ETUG report was produced it was believed that the planned upgrading of the Lee Valley line would include the installation of at least one and possibly two additional running lines and therefore the likelihood of both level crossings being permanently closed was high. In fact a third running line

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 33 Page 56

has been laid, but only as far as the new Meridian Water station and the prospect of further improvements seems unlikely unless they form part of Crossrail 2. Consequently the level crossings are likely to remain in use for the foreseeable future.

2.7.4 The ETUG proposals were described as ‘level crossing closures’ but it is still relevant to consider the adjustment of services 121 and 491 to lessen the disruption created by Enfield Lock level crossing at present as shown in Table 10.

2.7.5 The current service 121 would be truncated at Enfield Lock Station, with a new terminus arrangement on its western side although ETUG did not identify where this would be. Local roads (Ferndale Road, Ashton Road and Malvern Road) do form a loop to the north of Ordnance Road but they are residential in nature, not especially wide and have a significant level of on-street parking. Consequently they are unsuitable for use by buses.

2.7.6 In order to retain the link between Enfield Island Village and Enfield Town a new service would be introduced that would follow the existing 491 route to the crossroads at Ponders End High Street and then the current 121 route via Southbury Station. Somewhat strangely ETUG suggested that the northern section of service 491 between Enfield Island Village and Waltham Cross was retained as a separate operation rather than retaining the through Enfield Town to Waltham Cross link. ETUG’s proposal pre-dated the reduction in frequency of service 491.

Table 10: ETUG Proposed Action – Level Crossing Closures

Service Route ETUG Proposed Action Split into two services. 1 Enfield Island Village to Enfield via Enfield Lock Station (east side), Brimsdown, Industrial Estates and Nags Head Road. Enfield Island Village - 2 Enfield Lock Station to Wood Green via Hertford Road, 121 Turnpike Lane Station Enfield Town, Oakwood, Southgate and Palmers Green Barnet Hospital - Reduced frequency due to the changes to services 191, 307 Brimsdown Station 377, 491 and W9 Split into two services. 1 Enfield Island Village to Waltham Cross Station and bus station. Waltham Cross BS - North Middlesex 2 NMUH to Enfield Chase Station via Edmonton Green, 491 Hospital Ponders End Station, Enfield Retail Park and Enfield Town.

2.8 Standards for Level Crossings

2.8.1 The current control, command and signalling requirements and guidance for level crossings are set out in Rail Industry Standard RIS-0792-CCS of

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 34 Page 57

December 20165. This states that the level crossing operating sequences shall be as follows:

a) When the closing sequence is initiated, the amber lights of the road traffic signals shall illuminate and the audible warning devices shall begin to sound.

b) After approximately three seconds, the amber lights shall be extinguished and the red road traffic light signals shall begin to flash.

c) Approximately five seconds after the red road lights have commenced to flash, the barriers shall begin to lower.

d) At crossings with four barriers, the entrance barriers shall lower first. The exit barriers shall begin to lower after the entrance barriers have lowered.

e) The audible warning shall cease when all of the barriers are fully lowered.

2.8.2 The level crossing opening sequence shall be as follows:

a) When the opening sequence is initiated, the barriers shall begin to rise simultaneously, and

b) The red road light signals shall be extinguished when all the barriers have risen to an angle of approximately 45° above horizontal.

2.8.3 Based on these regulations the barrier closing sequence at Enfield Lock will take 19 seconds and the opening sequence 11.

2.9 Lee Valley Line

2.9.1 We have examined the scheduled railway timetable (including freight and empty stock movements) for a typical weekday. This reveals that between 05:00 and 01:00 there are some 400 trains passing over Enfield Lock level crossing per day, although four of these run on an ‘as required’ basis.

2.9.2 There are numerous occasions when two trains are scheduled to arrive at the same time or where a number of trains arrive so closely together as to preclude raising and lowering the barriers in the time between them. The most extreme example is the eight minutes between 17:23 and 17:31 when six trains (three northbound and three southbound) are scheduled to pass over the crossing. Our estimate of the likely closure pattern of Enfield Lock crossing (based on all scheduled trains operating and running on time) is contained in Table 11. The operation of a less than perfect service is likely to result in the level crossing being closed for an even greater time.

5 https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/ris-0792-ccs%20iss%201.pdf

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 35 Page 58

2.9.3 Between 06:00 and 23:00 the barriers are lowered against road traffic for an average of 36.2% of each hour (just under 22 minutes) with the hour between 17:00 and 17:59 worst affected with the barriers lowered for 48.3% of the hour (29 minutes). With this level of restriction on the passage of road traffic it is inevitable that the punctuality of any service routed over the Enfield Lock level crossing is seriously impaired. It is therefore no surprise that the punctuality of service 121 is adversely affected.

Table 11: Estimated Closure Pattern – Enfield Lock Level Crossing

Anticipated Estimated Scheduled Crossing closed time % Closed From To Trains Closures (mins) Time 05:00 05:59 9 8 9 15.00% 06:00 06:59 22 14 23 38.33% 07:00 07:59 23 10 23.5 39.17% 08:00 08:59 24 13 25.5 42.50% 09:00 09:59 22 13 22.5 37.50% 10:00 10:59 22 11 22 36.67% 11:00 11:59 20 12 18.5 30.83% 12:00 12:59 20 12 18.5 30.83% 13:00 13:59 21 12 20 33.33% 14:00 14:59 20 12 18.5 30.83% 15:00 15:59 21 11 20.5 34.17% 16:00 16:59 21 15 20.5 34.17% 17:00 17:59 25 13 29.0 48.33% 18:00 18:59 24 15 24.5 40.83% 19:00 19:59 23 13 26 43.33% 20:00 20:59 20 12 19 31.67% 21:00 21:59 20 12 19.5 32.50% 22:00 22:59 20 12 18.5 30.83% 23:00 23:59 15 12 12.5 20.83% 00:00 00:59 7 7 7 11.67%

2.9.4 In reality the number of vehicles able to cross when the barriers are raised is further limited by the time it takes for them to begin moving and the time when they start slowing in preparation for the next period of closure. There will also be train services which are late running so the barriers are down for even longer. This means that overall the level crossings are an impediment to the operation of reliable bus routes..

2.9.5 However, should the four tracking of the railway line proceed, it is understood that alternative crossing facilities (either an underbridge or overbridge) would

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 36 Page 59

be provided. Any underbridge would be have sufficient clearance to accommodate a double decker bus.

2.9.6 Despite this, the ETUG proposals included the diversion of service 121 to follow the route of the 491. This would remove it from Hertford Road and Ordnance Road west of the level crossing, an area from where it derives much of its patronage. This would have a significant adverse effect upon its viability.

2.9.7 In addition, while it is possible that some bus terminal facility could be provided at the western side of Enfield Lock station, this would almost certainly require compulsory purchase of land and property.

2.10 Improved Access to Retail and Industrial Parks

2.10.1 ETUG identified 19 retail and industrial parks likely to generate significant volumes of bus travel. Its recommendations, summarised in Table 12, result in twelve receiving an increased service, two having no change and five seeing a reduction.

2.10.2 The areas where there are reductions are not equally affected. Brimsdown South falls from 16 to 15 buses per hour and such a reduction is unlikely to have any significant impact, whilst the A10 Retail Park and Enfield Town are more affected (falling from 33 to 29 and 57.5 to 51 buses per hour respectively) but the remaining levels of service are such that capacity problems are not anticipated. In contrast Ponders End and Edmonton Green see a 22% and 27% reduction in service respectively and there must be doubts as to whether the residual provision would have adequate capacity.

Table 12: ETUG Proposed Action – Access to Retail and Industrial Parks

Existing ETUG Proposed Site Service Buses per Hour Service Buses per Hour A10 Retail Parks 121 6 121 10 191 6 191 0 217 5 217 6 231 4 231 4 307 6 307 5 313 3 313 0 317 3 317 0 491S 0 491S 4 Total 33 29 Alma Road 191 6 121 5 491S 0 491S 4

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 37 Page 60

Existing ETUG Proposed Site Service Buses per Hour Service Buses per Hour Total 6 9 Brimsdown North 121 0 121 5 491 4 491 0 Total 4 5 Brimsdown South 121 0 121 5 191 6 191 5 307 6 307 5 491 4 491 0 Total 16 15 Bull Lane 318 4 318 4 Total 4 4 Crews Hill W10 0 W10 2 Total 0 2 Edmonton Green 191 6 191 5 192 5 192 6 349 7.5 349 0 491 4 491 4 W6 6 W6 6 W8 7.5 W8 10 Total 36 31 Eley Estate 192 6 192 0 444 0 444 4 W8 0 W8 6 Total 6 10 Enfield Town 121 6 121 10 191 6 191 0 192 6 192 6 231 4 231 4 307 6 307 5 313 3 313 3 317 3 317 0 329 9 329 6 377 2 377 0 491 0 491 4 W8 7.5 W8 6 W9 4 W9 3

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 38 Page 61

Existing ETUG Proposed Site Service Buses per Hour Service Buses per Hour W10 1 W10 4 Total 57.5 51 Harbet Road 444 0 444 4 Total 0 4 Lincoln Road 217 5 217 6 231 4 231 4 313 0 313 3 377 2 377 0 Total 11 13 Mollison Avenue 191 0 191 5 217 5 217 6 231 0 231 4 317 3 317 0 327 2 327 3 491N 4 491N 4 Total 14 22 Palmers Green 121 6 121 5 141 0 141 9.25 329 9 329 6 W6 6 W6 6 Total 21 26.25 Ponders End 121 6 121 10 191 6 191 5 307 6 307 5 313 3 313 3 349 7.5 349 0 377 2 377 0 491S 4 491S 4 Total 34.5 27 Science Park 491 4 491 4 Total 4 4 Southgate 121 6 121 5 125 6 125 6 298 3 298 3 299 4 299 4 389/399 0 389/399 2

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 39 Page 62

Existing ETUG Proposed Site Service Buses per Hour Service Buses per Hour W6 6 W6 6 W9 4 W9 0 W10 0 W10 4 Total 29 30 South Street 191 6 191 5 491S 0 491S 4 Total 6 9

2.11 TfL Response

2.11.1 In December 2015 TfL presented to LBE regarding the Borough’s bus network and the use made of it for travel to work. This revealed that such use is most prevalent in the parts of LBE to the east of Great Cambridge Road and at its highest in Edmonton, where around a quarter of all trips to and from work are made by bus. In this context it is difficult to understand why ETUG suggested that the most severe reductions in service levels took place there. This same presentation examined the use of individual services for journeys to and from work and the results of this exercise are shown in Table 13.

2.11.2 Some 40% of the journeys to work by bus were made by employees at the retail park on Glover Drive where there is a Tesco Extra superstore and an IKEA outlet. A similar level of patronage is found on service 192 from the Montagu and Eley Industrial Estates and the then nascent Meridian Water development whilst there is also significant travel to and from Brimsdown.

Table 13: Daily Work Trips by Bus

Employment Area Daily Work Bus Service Trips by Bus Glover Drive 3,861 34, 444 Montagu Industrial Estate 1,516 192 Eley Industrial Estate 309 Meridian Water 1,680 Brimsdown 1,811 491 Picketts Lock 372 W8 Total 9,549

2.12 Meridian Water

2.12.1 TfL has concluded that only the Meridian Water development will have sufficient impact to warrant a review of the existing services and that at all

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 40 Page 63

other sites the current provision has sufficient capacity. They anticipate that the following adjustments would be required for Meridian Water:

 Creation of a new service between Tottenham Hale and Meridian Water at an estimated cost of £1,250,000 a year

 Diversion of service 444 (Turnpike Lane to Chingford) from its existing route along the North Circular Road to serve Meridian Water at an estimated cost of £250,000 a year.

 Extension of service 341 (Waterloo to Northumberland Park) to Meridian Water at an estimated cost £250,000 a year.

 Adjustment of service W8 to terminate at Meridian Water rather than Picketts Lock and extension of service W6 from its current terminus at Edmonton Green to Picketts Lock as a replacement at an estimated cost of £1,100,000 a year. A further extension to Walthamstow is possible but would depend upon developments in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. This would cost an additional £1,250,000 a year.

2.12.2 The only other change that would improve access to industrial areas is the combination of services 377 and 491 (see 2.6.10) which would provide a direct link from Oakwood, Enfield Chase, Enfield Town and Bush Hill Park to both Brimsdown and the Innova Business Park on Mollison Avenue.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Meeting the Objectives ▪ 41 Page 64

3Relevance of the Objectives 3

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This section examines each objective and assesses its current relevance in the light of developments over the period since the ETUG report was compiled.

3.2 Changes to the Operating Environment

3.2.1 Over the period between 2004/5 and 2011/12 annual bus passenger numbers in London grew from 1,802 million to 2,324 million. There was a slight fall in 2012/13 but in 2013/14 numbers grew once more to reach 2,384 million. Since this time there has been a decline each year and in 2017/18 annual passenger numbers totalled 2,225 million – similar to the level in 2008/96. This is illustrated in Figure A.

Figure A: London Buses Annual Patronage 2004/5 to 2017/18

2017/18

2016/17

2015/16

2014/15

2013/14

2012/13

2011/12

2010/11

2009/10

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

0 500,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 2,000,000,000 2,500,000,000

6 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys#table-bus0103

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 42 Page 65

3.2.2 This pattern of use has coincided with a number of changes to the operating environment:

 Major upgrades to the rail network that have resulted in a transfer of passengers from the bus network including:

 North London line upgraded to allow more train services and linked with extended east and west lines to create an orbital line;

 Accessibility improvements at 45 London stations;

 Introduction of Night Tube services on the Central, Northern, Jubilee, Piccadilly and Victoria lines.

 July 2014 London Buses ceased accepting on-bus cash payments.

 May 2016 Sadiq Khan elected Mayor of London and pledges to hold pay as you go bus fares at their existing level for four years (Travelcards are not affected). It was estimated that this policy would cost TfL a total of £640 million in lost revenue7.

 September 2016 ‘Hopper’ fare introduced allowing users to make two bus journeys within one hour (actually 70 minutes) for the flat fare of £1.50. In the first year of operation more than 100 million journeys were made using these tickets8.

 January 2018 ‘Hopper’ fare conditions amended to allow unlimited bus journeys within the period of validity. TfL estimated that an additional 13,000 people a day would benefit from this upgrade9.

3.2.3 The combination of declining passenger numbers and fares held at 2016 levels has seen the losses incurred in providing London’s bus services growing year on year. Figures taken from the TfL Annual Reports are shown in Table 14 and starkly illustrate the worsening performance, although oddly the new TfL budget for 2019/20 refers to £722 million being the highest bus subsidy in history. It is not possible to provide figures for earlier years as London Buses data was included within a larger ‘surface transport’ categorisation.

7 https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/11/fare-freezes-adding-transport-london-finance-woes 8 https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/100-million-journeys-made-on-hopper-fare 9 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42887323

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 43 Page 66

Table 14: London Buses Income and Expenditure (£million)

Category Year Ending 31-Mar-18 31-Mar-17 31-Mar-16 Passenger Income £1,453.0 £1,474.0 Other Operating Income £13.0 £13.0 Gross Income £1,466.0 £1,487.0 £1,568.0 Direct Operating Cost £2,104.0 £2,086.0 Indirect Operating Cost £67.0 £70.0 Depreciation & Amortisation £47.0 £45.0 Gross Expenditure £2,218.0 £2,201.0 £2,182.0 Net Cost of Services -£752.0 -£714.0 -£614.0

3.2.4 In June 2017 TfL began a process of ‘demand matching’ bus services. This was presented as a consequence of:

 reductions in passenger numbers due to extended bus journey times caused by increased congestion;

 loss of central government grants that totalled £591 million in 2015;

 the failure to implement the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street, although Westminster council has now produced proposals to reduce congestion and pollution by re-routing buses around the Oxford Circus district either side of Regent Street, closing some surrounding streets to cars and buses during the busiest times of day and reducing speed limit from 30mph to 20mph;

 improvements that would be made to the rail network on completion of Crossrail and the anticipated transfer of passengers from bus to rail as a result; and

 the introduction of night tube services that would allow rationalisation of the night bus network.

3.2.5 It was anticipated that resources released from central London would be used to boost services in the suburbs.

3.2.6 The reality has proved to be somewhat different. Although there have already been material central London reductions, in fact eight services operating within the LBE have been or are planned to be ‘demand matched’ and of these seven have seen reductions in the level of service as shown in Table 15.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 44 Page 67

Table 15: Impact of Demand Matching in the LBE

Date Service Route Change November 349 Ponders End – Stamford Hill Frequency reduced from every 2017 eight minutes to every ten minutes (-1.5 buses per hour) January 279 Manor House – Waltham Cross Frequency reduced from every four 2018 to five minutes to every five to seven minutes (-3 buses per hour) 329 Turnpike Lane – Enfield, Little Park Frequency reduced from every six Gardens to seven minutes to every seven to eight minutes (-1 bus per hour) June 2018 327 Waltham Cross – Elsinge Estate Frequency reduced from every 30 minutes to every 40 minutes (-0.5 bus per hour) 491 Waltham Cross – North Middlesex Frequency reduced from every 15 University Hospital minutes to every 20 minutes (-1 bus per hour) October 144 Edmonton Green – Muswell Hill Frequency reduced from every 2018 seven to eight minutes to every eight to nine minutes (-1 bus per hour) January 102 Edmonton Green – Brent Cross Frequency reduced from every 2019 seven to eight minutes to every nine minutes (-1 bus per hour) March 192 Tottenham Hale – Enfield, Little Additional weekday peak hour 2019 Park Gardens journeys. Sunday frequency increased from every 15 minutes to every 12 minutes (+1 bus per hour)

3.2.7 In addition, the central London bus review has looked to rationalise the number of routes along corridors as a way to improve performance without impacting on capacity or breaking links. There is also work to look at the feasibility of bus rapid transit on orbital corridors in outer London and a trial of demand responsive services is underway in Sutton and Croydon. These alternative types of approach and service provision could have a significant impact on how bus services are planned and provided in the future.

3.2.8 It is obvious that the current operating environment is substantially different to the one that existed at the time that the ETUG report was prepared. This does not mean that the issues it identified are any less valid but it does make it much less likely that significant changes which might disrupt existing travel patterns will be regarded favourably.

3.3 Amended Strategic Plans

3.3.1 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, setting out an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 45 Page 68

development of London over the next 20 to 25 years. The current version was published in August 2018 and is currently being examined in public. It incorporated amendments made to the previous (2016) version and contains an indicative list of eight policies that related to the bus operations of TfL:

 Demand responsive bus services (subject to further assessment) - completion 2041.

 Bus network enhancements to meet existing and future demand – ongoing.

 Silvertown Tunnel and associated bus services – completion 2030.

 Retrofitting and procuring cleaner buses – completion 2041.

 Low Emissions Bus Zones (including bus priority) – completion 2030.

 Bus stop accessibility programme – target to ensure that all bus stops are accessible by the end of 2020.

 Bus Priority network and supporting infrastructure – completion 2030.

 Bus transit pilots in Opportunity Areas – completion 2041.

3.3.2 It also contained a target of almost 19,000 new homes to be provided in the LBE over the ten year period between 2019/20 and 2028/29. Over the past ten years the actual number of dwellings completed in the LBE has been around a third of this level. This is to be achieved through ‘good growth’ – defined as:

“working to re-balance development in London towards more genuinely affordable homes for working Londoners to buy and rent. And it’s about delivering a more socially integrated and sustainable city, where people have more of a say and growth brings the best out of existing places while providing new opportunities to communities”.

3.3.3 The favoured methods of achieving this type of development are:

 intensification of existing provision;

 town centre renewal, especially centres with good public transport accessibility;

 opportunity and intensification areas and growth corridors;

 mixed use redevelopment, especially of surplus commercial capacity and surplus public land, and particularly that with good transport accessibility; and

 sensitive renewal of existing residential areas, especially in areas of good public transport accessibility.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 46 Page 69

3.3.4 The importance of good public transport accessibility to the achievement of the LBE target cannot be understated. The draft of the latest Enfield Local Plan was released for public consultation in December 2018, with the deadline for comments set at 28 February 2019. This Plan covers the development of the LBE through to 2036 and a key objective is to improve public transport and accessibility in the borough. The LBE believes that the level of population and employment growth proposed over the next 15 years will necessitate increased investment in public transport to improve transport accessibility for all users.

3.3.5 The LBE will seek to ensure that major new development is located in areas with high levels of public transport accessibility, thereby reducing the need to travel by private car, minimise energy use and to increase opportunities for walking and cycling in line with policy 23 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018. Consequently, if there is not adequate capacity in the transport system, their strategy for promoting growth may be constrained or delayed.

3.3.6 The LBE reports that public transport accounts for 20% of travel in Enfield and believes that its coverage and accessibility varies significantly across the borough. It recognises that there are good public transport accessibility levels (PTAL) around the town centres within the borough, but contends that there is a spread of low PTAL elsewhere. Consequently, the LBE believes that the Borough’s public transport system is not inducing a modal shift away from private motor vehicles.

3.3.7 LBE has a high requirement for a reliable and efficient bus network, but bus waiting times have risen over the previous two years. It is believed that this is due to congestion and therefore measures will need to be taken to:

 reduce the impact of cars on the borough’s roads; and

 work with Transport for London (TfL) to seek Bus Priority measures to reduce waiting times.

3.3.8 LBE will also seek new and improved bus services in order to improve east- west connectivity and provide better connection between town centres in the east and west of the borough.

3.3.9 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy of 2018 contains a commitment to improve public transport in order to help people not to use cars for longer trips and those that cannot practicably be walked or cycled. This will include re-shaping bus services, creating new express services, bus transits and orbital routes, and the provision of bus priority in town centres.

3.3.10 The aim is for 80% of trips to be made by active, efficient and sustainable modes – public transport, walking and cycling – by 2041, compared to 63% today. This aim is expected to be fulfilled by increases in levels of walking and cycling from the current 27% to between 30% and 40% of trips, and increases in public transport use from the current 35% to between 40% and 50% of

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 47 Page 70

trips. Buses will be key to delivering this aim as they are the most space efficient mode.

3.4 Improved Access to Hospitals

3.4.1 It is now more than five years since the reorganisation of acute health care provision in the LBE and the new patterns of travel that resulted have become established.

3.4.2 Only one service (307) from the LBE serves Barnet General Hospital although a second (184) passes close to it and terminates at Chesterfield Road which is a 750 metre (11 minute) walk from the main entrance. This terminus appears to differ from most of those used by TfL services as there is:

 nowhere for buses to stand off the main carriageway; and

 no dedicated facility for buses to turn.

3.4.3 The 307 provides an acceptable level of service to and from the central part of the LBE and most other areas have frequent links to Enfield Town where interchange is possible.

3.4.4 An adjustment of service 184 to terminate at Barnet General Hospital would improve access to the Hospital from other areas but would also remove it from the final six pairs of stops on the current route. We are not aware of the level of use made of these stops so are hesitant to propose such a change. Alternatively it could be extended from the current terminus to Barnet Hospital via Trinder Road and Wellhouse Lane but only at the cost of additional resource and carriageway works to allow a left turn from the bus turning circle at Barnet Hospital. However either of these modifications would deliver only marginal benefits to residents of LBE as the 184 is within the Borough for a distance of only 1.7 miles (Bounds Green to the Waterfall Road roundabout via Arnos Grove and Betstyle Circus).

3.4.5 CFH is the terminus of two services and on the route of another as shown in Table 17. These provide a good level of service from the south and central parts of the LBE, although the route from Southgate is circuitous. Most other areas have frequent links to Enfield Town where interchange is possible.

3.4.6 NMUH is, on paper, well served by bus services from the south and east of the borough as shown in Table 18. However only services 318, 444 and 491 enter the site or pass close to it and the first two are of little value to Enfield residents with both approaching NMUH from the south, service 318 terminating there and the 444 then running via the North Circular Road and Larkswood to Chingford.

3.4.7 The more frequent services 34, 102, 144 and W6 are routed along Silver Street with the stops at Lopen Road being the most conveniently located for

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 48 Page 71

NMUH. The walk from these stops to the NMUH main entrance off Bulls Lane via the Tanners End Lane underpass is 450 metres in length (six minutes walking time) for passengers boarding or alighting westbound journeys and 600 metres (seven minutes walking time) for those using eastbound buses. Similar walking trips are required from Silver Street Station served by trains from Enfield Town Station.

Table 16: Current Services to Barnet General Hospital

Service Route Weekday Daytime Frequency 184 Turnpike Lane – Wood Green – Alexandra Palace – Bounds Every 8 to 9 minutes Green – Arnos Grove – New Southgate – East Barnet – New Barnet – High Barnet – Chesterfield Road 307 Brimsdown – Ponders End – Enfield Town – Enfield Chase – Every 10 minutes Oakwood – New Barnet – High Barnet - Barnet Hospital

Table 17: Current Services to Chase Farm Hospital

Service Route Weekday Daytime Frequency 313 Chingford – Chingford Green – Ponders End – Enfield Town – Every 20 minutes Enfield Chase – Chase Farm Hospital – Ridgeway – Potters Bar W8 Picketts Lock – Edmonton Green – Bush Hill – Enfield Town – Every 8 minutes Lancaster Road – Chase Farm Hospital W9 Southgate Station – Fox Lane – Winchmore Hill – Grange Park Every 15 minutes – Bush Hill – Enfield Town – Parsonage Lane – Chase Farm Hospital

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 49 Page 72

Table 18: Current Services to North Middlesex University Hospital

Service Route Weekday Daytime Frequency 34 Barnet – Whetstone – Arnos Grove – Silver Street – Upper Every 8 minutes Edmonton - Walthamstow 102 Brent Cross – Golders Green – Hampstead Garden Suburb – Every 9 minutes East Finchley – Muswell Hill – Bounds Green – Silver Street – Lower Edmonton – Fore Street – Edmonton Green 144 Muswell Hill – Turnpike Lane – Wood Green – Great Every 8 to 9 minutes Cambridge Road - Silver Street – Lower Edmonton – Fore Street – Edmonton Green 318 Stamford Hill – South Tottenham – Northumberland Park – Every 15 minutes Roundway – Devonshire Hill – NMUH (Bull Lane) 444 Turnpike Lane – Noel Park – Great Cambridge Road – NMUH Every 12 minutes (Bridport Road) – North Circular Road - Chingford 491 Waltham Cross – Enfield Island Village – Enfield Lock – Every 20 minutes Brimsdown – Ponders End – Jubilee Park – Edmonton Green – Fore Street – Lower Edmonton – NMUH (Bull Lane) W6 Southgate – Palmers Green – Hedge Lane – Silver Street – Every 10 minutes Haselbury Road – Edmonton Green

3.5 Impact of Changes to Hospital Services

3.5.1 The ETUG proposals (see 2.3.3) did tackle the current notable omission of a service from Enfield Town to NMUH but also redesigned the network to provide more direct services to all three major hospitals. Some areas of the LBE gained significantly but our concern is that the part of the borough to the east of Hertford Road, where bus use is at its highest, does not benefit. This is shown in Table 19, where the areas that gain are highlighted in green, those that do not are highlighted in orange and those that lie outside the LBE are in italics. It is apparent that:

 Brimsdown and Ponders End have a reduced service to and from Barnet General Hospital;

 Brimsdown, Enfield Island Village and Enfield Lock lose their service to NMUH; and

 Edmonton Green loses its service to CFH.

3.5.2 Our assessment is that the ETUG proposals achieve level 1 against this objective.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 50 Page 73

Table 19: Direct Links to Hospitals – Impact of ETUG Proposals

Barnet General Silver Street Hospital CFH NMUH for NMUH Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Area Current ETUG Current ETUG Current ETUG Current ETUG Arnos Grove 8 8 Baker Street 8 8 Barnet 6 8 3 8 8 Barnet Hospital 3 Barrowell Green 3 3 Bowes Park 7 7 Brent Cross 7 7 Brimsdown 6 5 3 Bruce Grove 6 Bush Hill Park 8 11 Carterhatch Lane Chase Farm Hospital 3 3 Chase Side 6 3 Chingford 3 3 5 5 Chingford Hatch 5 5 Edmonton Green 8 3 3 20 20 Enfield Chase 6 8 3 10 10 Enfield Island Village 3 Enfield Lock 3 Enfield Town 6 8 15 18 7 Golders Green 7 7 Grange Park 4 Great Cambridge Road 4 5 9 7 7 Green Lanes 8 Hampstead Garden Suburb 7 7 Haselbury Road 6 6 Hedge Lane 3 3 6 6 Holtwhites Hill 3 4 3 Jubilee Park 3 3 Lavender Hill 8 12 4 Muswell Hill 14 14 New Barnet 6 8 3 NMUH 7

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 51 Page 74

Barnet General Silver Street Hospital CFH NMUH for NMUH Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Area Current ETUG Current ETUG Current ETUG Current ETUG North Circular Road 15 15 Northumberland Park 4 Oakwood 6 8 3 Palmers Green 4 8 6 6 Picketts Lock 8 Ponders End 6 5 3 3 3 3 Potters Bar 3 3 Roundway 9 5 7 7 Silver Street 7 7 South Tottenham 4 6 Southgate 4 6 6 Stamford Hill 4 Tottenham Hale 6 Turnpike Lane 8 5 11 7 7 Upper Edmonton 3 5 5 8 8 Waltham Cross 3 Walthamstow 8 8 Whetstone 8 8 White Hart Lane 4 Winchmore Hill 3 3 Wolves Lane 6 Wood Green 8 6 7 7 Worlds End 3 6 3

3.6 LBE Housing Regeneration Plans

3.6.1 Many of the smaller scale regeneration schemes identified by ETUG have been completed and the larger redevelopments at Alma Estate and Ladderswood are under way. None of these were considered by TfL to have a sufficiently large impact upon the demand for bus travel to warrant additional provision. We agree with this assessment.

3.6.1 The Meridian Water development is however a different proposition. Here it is planned to provide 10,000 new homes and create 6,500 jobs over the next 20 years10 and this scale of development will require both additional provision and

10 https://new.enfield.gov.uk/improvingenfield/projects-in-the-borough/meridian-water/

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 52 Page 75

the adjustment of existing services. At present the 192 Enfield – Edmonton Green – Northumberland Park – Tottenham Hale is the main service in Meridian Water operating every ten minutes during the day Monday to Saturday and every 12 minutes on Sundays.

3.6.2 ETUG proposed that the 192 be curtailed to operate between Enfield and Edmonton Green only and the current W8 (Chase Farm Hospital – Enfield Town – Edmonton Green – Picketts Lock) amended to run Enfield Town – Edmonton Green – Meridian Water – Tottenham Hale in its stead. In addition it suggested that the 444 (Turnpike Lane – NMUH – Chingford) be diverted from its current route along the North Circular Road to run via Stockton Road, Leeside Road and the Glover Drive retail park, thus serving the southern end of Meridian Water.

3.6.3 TFL’s assessment was that Meridian Water would justify better provision than this and proposed:

 extension of service W6 to Picketts Lock;

 diversion of service W8 from Picketts Lock to Meridian Water, with an option to further extend to Tottenham Hale if justified by demand;

 new service operating every ten minutes between Meridian Water and Tottenham Hale;

 diversion of service 444 through the Meridian Water site; and

 curtail service 341 at Northumberland Park and extend service 476 to Meridian Water.

3.6.4 TfL also was considering suggestions from LBE that some higher quality service, perhaps guided bus, might connect Meridian Water with Enfield more directly.

3.6.5 The anticipated cost of these changes was £3.404 million a year, with a further £655,000 a year should it prove necessary to extend the W8 to Tottenham Hale. This is a long-term plan and implementation is subject to the level of development achieved over the life of the development and the extent to which s106 developer funding is available. TfL also noted that some adjustment to this plan might be necessary depending upon the final density of the housing provision and any future changes to the rail service, with specific focus on the replacement of Angel Road station by the new Meridian Water station and the impact of Crossrail 2.

3.6.6 Our assessment is that the ETUG proposals achieve level 2 against this objective.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 53 Page 76

3.7 Schools Transport

3.7.1 With the expansion of parental choice it has become much more difficult to predict the travelling patterns of pupils. Few primary age children are likely to use local buses but those of post primary age may travel considerable distances, although within the LBE the vast majority will not be entitled to assistance with travel on statutory grounds.

3.7.2 Without detailed knowledge of travel to school patterns it is difficult to comment on the efficacy of ETUG proposals on this aspect of travel demand but it appears to have been very much a secondary consideration. Overall, the principle is correct not to allow school movements twice per day to dictate the all-day service pattern.

3.7.3 Service levels to schools with similar numbers of pupils on the roll have been both increased and reduced as shown in Table 20. For example, Aylward Academy and Southgate Secondary School are almost identical in size yet the former would see its bus service increase from six to 20 buses per hour whilst at the latter it would fall from 21 to 18 buses per hour. The most severe loss of service would be at Nightingale Academy where the number of buses per hour would be almost halved.

3.7.4 Since the original review, the LBE School Expansion Plan has been largely completed and new travel patterns will have been established. The only definite planned school development within the LBE is to accompany the new development at Chase Farm.

3.7.5 Our assessment is that the ETUG proposals achieve level 1 against this objective.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 54 Page 77

Table 20: Impact of ETUG Proposals on Travel to School

School Buses per Hour Pupils Age Pupils per Bus on Roll Range per Hour Current ETUG Current ETUG Aylward Academy 6 20 1,510 11 to 18 252 76 Bishop Stopford's C of E School 26 28 920 11 to 18 35 33 Broomfield Secondary School 10 11 600 11 to 16 60 55 Chase Community Secondary School 14.5 12 1,257 11 to 18 87 105 Edmonton County Secondary School 21 23 1,608 4 to 18 77 70 Enfield County School 57.5 51 1,099 11 to 18 19 22 Enfield Grammar School 57.5 51 1,100 11 to 18 19 22 Highlands Secondary School 20 22 2,000 11 to 18 100 91 Kingsmead School 33 29 1,454 11 to 18 44 50 Latymer Secondary School 22.5 22 1,365 11 to 18 61 62 Lea Valley Academy 14 22 1,230 11 to 18 88 56 Nightingale Academy 21 11 673 11 to 18 32 61 Oasis Academy 20.5 17 1,535 2 to 18 75 90 Southgate Secondary School 21 18 1,519 11 to 18 72 84 St Anne’s Catholic High School 24 20.25 910 11 to 18 38 45 Winchmore Secondary School 15 30.25 1,583 11 to 18 106 52

3.8 Areas of Poor Accessibility

3.8.1 The accessibility of public transport networks is conventionally measured in terms of the percentage of the population living within 400 metres of a bus stop (generally taken as equivalent to a five minute walk). TfL also takes into account the frequency, reliability and punctuality of the services calling at that stop in its assessment. On this basis TfL estimates that, in Enfield, 95% of residents are within a five minute walk of the public transport network and that virtually all are within an eight minute walk. These figures are similar to the London Borough’s average.

3.8.2 ETUG, in contrast, chose a combination of absolute population and the IMD rating to identify a total of 12 sectors spread across nine wards as priority areas requiring improvements in accessibility. The way in which these two factors were combined to produce these results is not explained and neither is there any justification for rejecting the established methodology. In these circumstances it is difficult to promote ETUG’s calculation of accessibility as being superior.

3.8.3 Our assessment is that the ETUG proposals achieve level 0 against this objective.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 55 Page 78

3.9 Level Crossing Closures

3.9.1 The ETUG proposals that were described as ‘level crossing closures’ assumed that the enhanced rail infrastructure would lead to complete closure of Enfield Lock level crossing. The current service 121 would be truncated at Enfield Lock Station, with a new terminus arrangement on its western side. ETUG did not identify where this would be and we believe that its provision will be difficult.

3.9.2 Service 491 would thus become Enfield Island Village’s only link – at the time of the ETUG report it operated every 15 minutes, but has now been reduced to run every 20 minutes. Should this new service pattern be adopted the area would receive three indirect buses per hour into Enfield compared to the current six via the direct route.

3.9.3 It is now unlikely that in the short to mid-term the crossing will close and therefore the only requirement is to look at adjustment of services 121 and 491 to lessen the disruption created by Enfield Lock level crossing at present.

3.9.4 Our assessment is that the ETUG proposals achieve level 1 against this objective.

3.10 Improved Access to Retail and Industrial Parks

3.10.1 ETUG identified nineteen retail and industrial parks likely to generate significant volumes of bus travel. It is unclear on what basis this assessment was made given employment density is traditionally low for these types of uses.

3.10.2 Its recommendations resulted in twelve of these receiving an increased service, two having no change and five seeing a reduction. The most marked reductions are at Ponders End (22%) and Edmonton Green (27%) and there must be doubts as to whether the residual provision would have adequate capacity.

3.10.3 Travel to work by bus is most prevalent in the parts of LBE to the east of Great Cambridge Road and at its highest in Edmonton, where around a quarter of all trips to and from work are made by bus. In this context it is difficult to understand why ETUG suggested that the most severe reductions in service levels took place there.

3.10.4 Our assessment is that the ETUG proposals achieve level 0 against this objective.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Relevance of the Objectives ▪ 56 Page 79

4Conclusions of the 2013 Report 4

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section examines the conclusions of the 2013 report. It also seeks to explain why TfL rejected them and how to avoid the same result in the future.

4.2 Creating New Links

4.2.1 The report sought to create seven new links, which were:

a) Enfield Town to North Middlesex University Hospital (NMUH);

b) Enfield Town to Arnos Grove;

c) From most of Enfield and Haringey stations on the main line to Hertford Road, Fore Street and Tottenham High Road;

d) A speedier Enfield Island Village to Enfield Town journey;

e) Enfield Town to Crews Hill, Whitewebbs, Capel Manor and Forty Hall;

f) North Middlesex University Hospital (NMUH) to Chase Farm Hospital (CFH) via Winchmore Hill; and

g) Chase Farm Hospital to Barnet General Hospital (BGH) via Oakwood.

4.3 Assessment of Proposed New Links - NMUH

4.3.1 The lack of a direct bus service between Enfield Town and NMUH is a clear deficiency in the current LBE bus network. We also acknowledge that the station and bus stops at Silver Street are in several respects too remote to be described as stops ‘convenient’ for NMUH and that the preference would be for a service operating into the hospital site. This was recognised by TfL in its 2016 proposal to increase the frequency of service W10 from one to two buses per hour and extend the route to operate Crews Hill – Enfield Town – NMUH (the route to be followed was not specified at that time) at an estimated annual cost of £738,000.

4.3.2 The principle of this extension has been agreed, although funding is still to be committed. The intended route is Enfield Town – Enfield Chase – World’s End – Winchmore Hill – Farm Road – Firs Lane – Hedge Lane – Silver Street – NMUH. In addition to providing this missing link the route of the extended service improves accessibility in the vicinity of Firs Lane, which is currently one of the few areas of the LBE not within 400 metres of a public transport service.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions of the 2013 Report ▪ 57 Page 80

4.3.3 Some route detail will require highway works to assist the service. The width- restricted traffic calming measures on Firs Lane will need attention, while the LBE is looking into enabling a right turn off Carterhatch Lane onto Willow Road to avoid the need for a lengthy double-run.

4.4 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Arnos Grove

4.4.1 Much of the rationale behind the proposed need for a direct link from Enfield Town to Arnos Grove has most likely been eliminated by the advent of the Hopper fare. At present service 329 operates frequently between Enfield and Green Lanes where a change onto service 232 to Arnos Grove delivers a total single journey time in the region of 40 to 50 minutes depending upon the time of day. A quicker journey is also possible by travelling from Enfield on either service 121 or 307 and then changing onto the Piccadilly Line at Oakwood.

4.5 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Main Line

4.5.1 It was not immediately apparent to which ‘main line’ stations this proposal referred, although the stated objective was links to ‘most’ of them. However it became clear that the ‘main line’ to which the proposals related is the one running through Angel Road, Ponders End, Brimsdown and Enfield Lock stations (as opposed to the line through Silver Street, Edmonton Green, Southbury and Turkey Street which is known as ‘the Southbury loop’).

4.5.2 In this case we have taken the reference to providing links to ‘most’ of the stations as excluding the now closed Angel Road. This is understandable as it was located adjacent to non-manufacturing industrial businesses and a former gas works and, for a number of years, had been London’s least used station. Its replacement – the new station at Meridian Water - is dealt with elsewhere.

4.5.3 Table 21 shows the typical weekday rail service at the three stations on this line. In terms of the service delivered during the main body of the day Enfield Lock has three trains per hour in each direction (two Liverpool Street to Hertford East, one Stratford to Bishops Stortford), whilst Brimsdown and Ponders End are served only by the Liverpool Street to Hertford East trains.

4.5.4 The current weekday pattern of bus services at the three stations during the main part of the day is shown in Table 22 and Figure B, which also shows those areas within 400 metres of the existing routes. The bus service frequencies and extent of operation are such that connections are available to and from all trains. It is unfortunate that the two frequent links between Enfield and Brimsdown run at the same times.

4.5.5 It is apparent from Figure B that much of the catchment area of these three stations lies within a 400 metre buffer of the bus routes that serve them and it is our view that there is no potential for additional links that would not substantially duplicate existing provision. Only a short section of the north end

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions of the 2013 Report ▪ 58 Page 81

of Hertford Road around Freezywater has no direct link to a main line station within the LBE.

4.5.6 To achieve comprehensive links to stations, a fairly radical change to services was proposed, the most striking being the removal of service 191 from Enfield Town Centre and the Carterhatch Lane section in favour of a more easterly route. The ensuing loss of links was identified as a significant issue by TfL and we support its view.

Table 21: Typical Weekday ‘Main Line’ Rail Service (Trains per Day)

Station Destination Enfield Lock Brimsdown Ponders End Liverpool Street 38 39 36 Stratford 20 4 1 Total Southbound 58 43 37 Bishops Stortford 17 1 1 Broxbourne 4 5 5 Hertford East 36 32 32 Total Northbound 57 38 38

Table 22: Daytime Bus Service Patterns at ‘Main Line’ Stations (minutes past each hour)

Service Station Enfield Lock Brimsdown Ponders End 121 Turnpike Lane – 01, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51 Enfield Island Village 121 Enfield Island 08, 18, 28, 38, 48, 58 Village – Turnpike Lane 191 Brimsdown – 00, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 04, 14, 24, 34, 44, 54 Edmonton Green 191 Edmonton Green - 08, 18, 28, 38, 48, 58 00, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 Brimsdown 307 Brimsdown – 00, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 Barnet General Hospital 307 Barnet General 09, 19, 29, 39, 49, 59 Hospital - Brimsdown 491 Waltham Cross - 05, 25, 45 10, 30, 50 NMUH 491 NMUH – Waltham 19, 39, 59 14, 34, 54 Cross

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions of the 2013 Report ▪ 59 Page 82

Figure B: Existing Bus Services to ‘Main Line’ Stations with 400 Metre Buffer

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions of the 2013 Report ▪ 60 Page 83

4.6 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Enfield Island Village

4.6.1 Following the route of service 121 Enfield Island Village is just under five miles from Enfield Town and buses are allowed 48 minutes to make the inbound journey in the morning peak and 45 minutes to make the outbound journey in the afternoon peak. These running times equate to average speeds of 6.0 and 6.27 mph respectively. At other times of day traffic conditions allow the buses to travel slightly faster, but it is only in the evening that average speeds exceed nine miles per hour. See Table 23 for running times at various times of the day.

4.6.2 Given that there are 25 intermediate stops, five signal-controlled junctions and a level crossing on the route these speeds are reasonable and deliver journey times only some fifteen minutes slower than those predicted for travel by car over the same route.

Table 23: Service 121 Scheduled Running Times

Time Band Enfield Island Village to Enfield Town Enfield Town to Enfield Island Village Scheduled Distance Average Scheduled Distance Average Time (mins) (miles) Speed (mph) Time (mins) (miles) Speed (mph) Morning Peak 48 4.8 6.00 40 4.7 7.05 Inter-peak 42 4.8 6.86 36 4.7 7.83 Afternoon Peak 42 4.8 6.86 45 4.7 6.27 Evening 31 4.8 9.29 30 4.7 9.40

4.6.3 It is undoubtedly true that a significantly quicker journey time could be delivered should the buses be routed via Mollison Avenue but this would take them away from the densely populated areas adjacent to Ordnance Road and Hertford Road and instead send them through a primarily industrial area. This would result in a substantial loss of patronage and revenue which the generated traffic from Enfield Island Village resulting from the faster journey time would come nowhere near replacing.

4.7 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Whitewebbs and Forty Hall

4.7.1 In the present environment there is little justification for the introduction of a conventional service to Whitewebbs, Capel Manor and Forty Hall - an area of the borough with low residential population densities and dispersed patterns of settlement. The current service plans will see the frequency of the W10 Enfield to Crews Hill service doubled from hourly to half-hourly (and, we assume, with a longer operating day), this being the only populated part of this area that appears to have sufficient demand to support a conventional bus service.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions of the 2013 Report ▪ 61 Page 84

4.8 Assessment of Proposed New Links – Inter-Hospital Services

4.8.1 The rationale behind the suggested through links between NMUH and CFH and between CFH and BGH is not clear. The concentration of medical specialities at specific sites makes it unlikely that sufficient volumes of patients will need to travel between them and hospital staff will wish to make their journeys as directly and quickly as possible. Consequently a conventional bus service is unlikely to prove attractive.

4.8.2 We understand that following reorganisation, shuttle buses were organised by the Health Trusts linking Chase Farm Hospital with both the Barnet and NMUH sites. They were both short-lived and this would seem to prove that volume of demand for travel between hospital sites is low.

4.9 Outcome

4.9.1 Given the considerations outlined above it is understandable that only the suggested link from Enfield Town to NMUH has been taken forward, although even this is still subject to funding being committed.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions of the 2013 Report ▪ 62 Page 85

5Bus Related Changes at TfL Since 2013 5

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This section examines changes in bus policy at TfL since 2013. There are three main areas which are the introduction of the Hopper Fare, reductions to services to save money and the proposals to increase bus services in outer- London Boroughs.

5.2 Hopper Fare

5.2.1 The Hopper Fare, which allowed a passenger to make two journeys by bus and tram within an hour (actually 70 minutes including the leeway built into the system) for a single fare, was introduced in September 2016. In January 2018 the conditions were altered to permit unlimited journeys within the period of validity. TfL estimates that 350,000 of these Hopper tickets are sold each weekday.

5.2.2 Assuming that users typically make a two bus journey to work in the morning and the same to return home this would result in a daily saving of £1.40 (compared to the £4.40 daily cap) for 175,000 people. This represents a maximum exposure for TfL of around £59 million per year. Data from the 2017 Borough Local Implementation Plan Statistics reveals that the LBE accounts for 3.2% of bus trips in Greater London. Using a straight pro-rata calculation this equates to 11,200 Hopper trips per day and therefore a reduction in revenue of up to £1.9 million each year in the Enfield network.

5.2.3 These figures are upper extremes. The reality is that in some cases the Hopper fare will cover a second short trip that would not have been made by bus if it were not ‘free’ and also other trips where the passenger would otherwise have waited for a through bus.

5.2.4 In terms of network design, the principal function of the Hopper fare has been the removal of the financial penalty for changing bus. The acceptance of the need to make two trips to complete a journey is further aided if the bus interchange is easy and simple to navigate.

5.3 Reductions in Bus Support

5.3.1 Following a steady decline in bus patronage (5% drop between 2013/14 and 2016/17) and withdrawal of the direct grant from the Department for Transport, TfL is seeking to save money by reducing bus routes, a process described as ‘Demand Matching’.

5.3.2 In addition, the cost of operating buses in London continues to grow ahead of inflation, with the latest CPT figures showing cost increases of 5.4% per year

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Bus Related Changes at TfL Since 2013 ▪ 63 Page 86

against 3.3% nationally. The expansion of the fleet of expensive electric buses can explain a huge increase in depreciation charges in London by 30% in one year.11

5.3.3 Demand matching, up to now, has been mainly focused on the centre of London, for five main reasons:

a) There is seen to be too much duplication of routes through the centre;

b) It is felt that too great a level of bus resource is focussed on the centre;

c) The worst passenger decline has occurred on routes with the highest fall in speed and these are typically in the central area (see Figure C);

d) The (now delayed) opening of the Elizabeth Line will provide an alternative route into the centre of London for east to west passengers connecting at interchanges; and

e) The Mayor’s proposal to pedestrianise Oxford Street, since rejected by Westminster City Council.

5.3.4 Some overlapping route sections have been withdrawn, while others have been shortened but the main principle in new contract awards, including some in the LBE, has been frequency reduction. All of these, of course, contribute to further passenger decline.

5.4 Outer London Enhancements

5.4.1 As part of its December 2017 Business Plan, covering 2018/19 – 2022/23, TfL announced a policy to support new housing developments by increasing capacity in suburban areas.

5.4.2 In large part this is driven by the uneven nature of decline in patronage across the Boroughs. This is much more acute in central London than in the outer Boroughs. TfL presents this trend by analysing the decline in capacity utilisation (in layman’s terms the extent to which buses have unfilled seats) and over four years, as shown in Figure C, the LBE’s reduction in seat occupancy has been limited to three per cent.

11 http://www.cpt-uk.org//_uploads/attachment/4738.pdf

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Bus Related Changes at TfL Since 2013 ▪ 64 Page 87

Figure C: Decline in Capacity Utilisation in London 2014/15-2017/18 by Borough12

Enfield

5.4.3 A London Assembly Transport Committee (LATC) report in August 201713 noted a strong political demand for more orbital routes within Greater London. Whether or not this reflects actual shortcomings in the network is unclear as there are currently well over one hundred such routes, comprising over 15% of the total number.

5.4.4 It is likely that the LATC is referring to a desire for more services like service X26 (an express service linking south London towns and Heathrow Airport) but this runs at an exceptional loss and so is unlikely to be widely replicated. Such services will suffer poor financial performance as the standard TfL bus fare is very low for a longer-distance service.

5.4.5 However, LATC is critical that reaction to this concern remains ‘general’ and has not been backed up by specific proposals, while the resource saving from central London routes has already been made and, indeed, there have been resource savings in the suburbs.

12 Source TfL Consultation documents on Service Changes in Central London 13 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/bus_network_report_final.pdf

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Bus Related Changes at TfL Since 2013 ▪ 65 Page 88

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Bus Related Changes at TfL Since 2013 ▪ 66 Page 89

6Changes in Enfield Since 2013 6

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This section examines wider changes within the Borough of Enfield and includes transport changes not covered in Chapter 5.

6.2 Meridian Water

6.2.1 The Master Plan for the new Meridian Water development was approved by the LBE in July 2013. At that time the full development was planned to eventually consist of up to five thousand new homes.

6.2.2 To support this scale of development, TfL has plans for the site to be served by a number of bus services connecting to Enfield Town Centre as well as the transport hubs of Tottenham Hale and Edmonton Green. A Guided Busway linking the development to Enfield was proposed but was not included in the Master Plan. The new Meridian Water railway station replaced Angel Road and opened in June 2019. It will act as a public transport hub for the site.

6.2.3 Our understanding is that the LBE wishes to encourage links between Meridian Water and Enfield and is keen that the revised bus network facilitates such travel. In order to succeed it will be necessary to overcome the natural tendency for Meridian Water residents, living in the farthest south-eastern corner of the borough, to gravitate southwards to Tottenham. TfL’s initial network proposals do concentrate services to the south, although a frequent link to Enfield would be provided by the extension of service W8.

6.3 New Southgate Regeneration

6.3.1 The 2011 Plan included a total of 766 new residential units in an area bounded by New Southgate Station, Arnos Grove Station and the North Circular Road. Just over two thirds of those residential units are to be located in the redeveloped Ladderswood Estate and the neighbouring Western Gateway site in the south east corner of the regeneration zone.

6.3.2 This area is served by seven bus services as shown in Table 24. These provide good, direct links to the north (Southgate, Cockfosters and Potters Bar) the west (Barnet, Whetstone, Finchley, Mill Hill, Brent Cross) and the south east (Alexandra Palace, Wood Green, Turnpike Lane, NMUH and Walthamstow). Travel to the central and north eastern parts of the LBE require a change of buses at New Southgate.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Changes in Enfield Since 2013 ▪ 67 Page 90

Table 24: Current Arnos Grove and New Southgate Bus Services

Weekday Daytime Service Route Frequency Barnet - Whetstone - Arnos Grove - Palmers Green - Every eight minutes (7 or 8 34 Edmonton - Walthamstow buses per hour) Barnet - East Barnet - Arnos Grove - Bounds Green - Every eight to nine minutes 184 Turnpike Lane Station (7 buses per hour) Edgware - Mill Hill - Mill Hill East - North Finchley - Friern 221 Barnet - New Southgate - Bounds Green - Wood Green - Every eight minutes (7 or 8 Turnpike Lane Station buses per hour) St Raphael's Estate - Brent Cross - Finchley - New Every 15 minutes (4 buses 232 Southgate - Arnos Grove - Palmers Green - Wood Green per hour) Edgware - Burnt Oak - Mill Hill - Totteridge - Whetstone - Every 12 minutes (6 buses 251 Arnos Grove per hour) Every 20 minutes (3 buses 298 Potters Bar - Cockfosters - Southgate - Arnos Grove per hour) Mill Hill East - Finchley - Friern Barnet - New Southgate - Every 15 minutes (4 buses 382 Arnos Grove - Hampden Square - Southgate per hour)

6.3.3 When TfL evaluated the ETUG report its conclusion was that the existing network provided sufficient capacity to accommodate any additional demand produced by this redevelopment. Consequently there was no need to provide additional links or enhance the existing provision. We agree with this assessment.

6.4 Chase Farm Redevelopment

6.4.1 As part of the redevelopment of Chase Farm Hospital site, part was sold off for the construction of 500 new residential units and a new primary school. The site is located within the terminal loop for services W8 and W9 and so any reduction in their passenger numbers due to the contraction of the hospital will, at least partially, be compensated by demand from the new houses. The development is also within walking distance of Gordon Hill Station. TfL considers that the current level of service provision will be adequate.

6.5 Enfield Town Centre Redevelopment

6.5.1 The Enfield Town Centre Framework Masterplan was adopted by the LBE in March 2018. It seeks to ensure that new developments taking place in the town centre accord with the aims of

 improving the feel of the town centre; and

 encouraging the night time economy.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Changes in Enfield Since 2013 ▪ 68 Page 91

6.5.2 A large block of the centre of Enfield sits within what is effectively a large traffic island with traffic performing a one way circuit. Particularly on the south side, this forms a barrier between parts of the central area. A change in priorities between road traffic and pedestrian movements would have impacts on bus movements. For the latter aim to be successful there will need to be an attractive evening bus service.

6.5.3 The Masterplan does not mention bus services in great detail. This is a surprising omission in view of the vital contribution that they make to the mobility of the borough’s residents. A commitment to facilitate their operation and to promote their use would be a welcome amendment.

6.5.4 It does however express the desire to relocate the current bus station from Little Park Gardens on the west side of the town centre to Enfield Town Station on the east side. The existing facility is not large, comprising a turning area, standing sufficient for four or five buses to take layover between journeys and a single boarding stand with a shelter.

6.5.5 There are no obvious vacant pieces of land of sufficient size for a replacement in the vicinity of Enfield Town station, but the existing car park on Genotin Road could be adapted for this purpose. However such a relocation would reduce the penetration of the town centre by services approaching Little Park Gardens from the east.

6.5.6 The Masterplan comments on the current generous provision of car parking and there is a stated intention to review its provision, although this falls well short of a firm commitment to its reduction.

6.6 Railways

National Rail

6.6.1 The TfL franchise London Overground took over operation of the Liverpool Street to Enfield Town and Cheshunt services in May 2015 and has new rolling stock on order with delivery scheduled for 2019, although this timescale has probably now slipped. The remaining Greater Anglia services through the LBE will also see new rolling stock introduced over the next few years. A Stratford to Meridian Water shuttle service is due to start running in September 2019 as part of the introduction of extra infrastructure along the Lee Valley line, which is also a precursor to Crossrail 2.

6.6.2 New rolling stock is currently being introduced on the Great Northern services from Moorgate to Hertford North (the Hertford Loop). These services have already seen changes, with four trains an hour running off peak from Hertford North and Moorgate now being served at weekends as well as weekdays. The December 2019 timetable should see a further enhancement to the frequency of the Hertford Loop services.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Changes in Enfield Since 2013 ▪ 69 Page 92

Piccadilly Line

6.6.3 After a legal challenge, TfL awarded Siemens a contract for new London Underground trains in November 2018. The order is initially for the Piccadilly Line with plans to increase peak time frequency by up to three trains an hour by the end of 202614.

6.7 Mini-Holland Cycle Schemes

6.7.1 In March 2014 LBE secured around £30 million for improving cycling as part of the then Mayor’s ‘Cycle Superhighways’ initiative. This has involved the reallocation of highway space and some footpaths from motor vehicles to cyclists with the creation of cycle lanes segregated from other road traffic. The first scheme on the A105 through Palmers Green was introduced in stages between 2016 and 2018 and work is currently ongoing on the A1010 at Edmonton Green.

6.7.2 The main impact on bus services has been the movement of bus stops and changes to boarding arrangements. LBE is monitoring the schemes to determine if this has had a significant impact on journey times and patronage. It believes that any impact is likely to be mitigated by reduced levels of general traffic as more people chose to walk and cycle, as well as the introduction of bus priority measures.

14 https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2018/november/siemens-to-design-and-manufacture-next- generation-tube-trains

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Changes in Enfield Since 2013 ▪ 70 Page 93

7The 2013 Methodology 7

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This section examines the methodology used for the 2013 report. The main focus is on how well it meets current relevant guidance, accessibility standards and established best practice.

7.2 Principles of the 2013 Review

7.2.1 LBE made contact with Anthony Wallis, who was involved with ETUG in the 2013 review, and provided an explanation of the rationale behind the original proposals. These emerged from a series of meetings held over an eighteen month period with the Council’s Public Transport Consultative Group and the membership of the Enfield Transport User Group. There was an overriding requirement not to employ any additional bus resource, which required reduction of resources in some areas in order to commit resources to some of the alterations proposed in others.

7.2.2 The key changes were:

 amendments to services 121 and 491 driven by a perceived need to take action to counter delays caused by the operational closure of Enfield Lock level crossing, but Appendix 5 to the report introduced some contradiction in that it suggested that proposals to permanently close the level crossings as part of the Lee Valley upgrade drove the need for service changes;

 amendment of service 191 to remove the double crossing of the Great Cambridge Road and to provide a new route connecting Ponders End, Brimsdown and Enfield Lock stations on the line to Waltham Cross with the residential areas around the Hertford Road;

 creation of better links to the three main hospitals used by LBE residents;

 improvement in the connection between north east Enfield and Chase Farm Hospital; and

 withdrawal of services 317 (Enfield – Waltham Cross) and 349 (Ponders End – Stamford Hill) in order to save bus resource with some balancing enhancements on other routes along Fore Street and Hertford Road.

7.2.3 The overall impact was to shift resources from the east to the west of the Borough which created better coverage for the west.

7.2.4 The Review did not look at routes such as the 29 and 34 that primarily served neighbouring boroughs but which could also have been extended or rerouted

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ The 2013 Methodology ▪ 71 Page 94

within LBE. There was also a number of proposed minor self-contained route extensions to, for example, 125, 141 and W4.

7.3 Aims of the Service Proposals

7.3.1 In essence, the proposals specifically aimed to provide or facilitate a number of new through linkages:

 Enfield Town to North Middlesex University Hospital;

 Enfield Town to Arnos Grove;

 From Enfield Lock, Brimsdown and Ponders End stations on the Liverpool Street to Hertford North line to Hertford Road, Fore Street and Tottenham High Road;

 A speedier Enfield Island Village to Enfield Town journey;

 New or improved services from Enfield Town to Crews Hill, Whitewebbs, Capel Manor and Forty Hall;

 North Middlesex University Hospital to Chase Farm Hospital via Winchmore Hill and

 Chase Farm Hospital to Barnet General Hospital via Oakwood

7.3.2 The relevance or otherwise of these objectives is examined in Task Note 2.

7.4 Established Travel Patterns

7.4.1 No usage data was available to the team that undertook the original review and so neither the established travel patterns on the existing services nor their scale was known. Consequently breaking established links had the potential to inconvenience thousands of users immediately, whilst building numbers on new links takes time.

7.4.2 The proposal above (see 7.2.2) to simply withdraw service 349 because of over-provision along its route, was done with no knowledge of its actual patronage. Similarly service 317 was described as ‘little used’ without any figures to support this assertion.

7.4.3 In many ways the established network of bus services in an area is one of the main determinants of travel demand and these patterns of use can outweigh or contradict any theoretical travel patterns modelled using demographic statistics. For example, the demographic characteristics of an area might suggest that it is unlikely to produce high volumes of bus travel but there is, in reality, substantial usage because there is an established high-frequency service.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ The 2013 Methodology ▪ 72 Page 95

7.4.4 Similarly, although the achievement of minimum levels of accessibility for all is a laudable aim, the truth might be that the demand simply does not exist for new services or there may be a high frequency service slightly beyond the usual walking limit to which passengers gravitate. Service provision based purely on accessibility criteria is only achievable where available public funding is generous.

7.5 Operating Costs

7.5.1 The proposals aimed to ensure that the number of buses committed was broadly unchanged. We assume that in order to do so, skeleton timetables based on realistic times were constructed.

7.5.2 Bus numbers (or peak vehicle requirement (PVR)) are, however, only part of the cost equation. Different bus types have different rates of depreciation or leasing charges, reflecting purchase price. Vehicles have different fuel consumption, different pay rates apply for different operators and some services require a longer period of main day service frequencies. The proportion of costs attributable by number of hours in service generally exceeds the basic unit of having a bus in the fleet.

7.5.3 Bus operating costs can be reduced if journey times can be speeded up. Bus priority measures are key to this. Given that LBE is the Highway Authority for most of the bus roads in the Borough, it is disappointing that the report did not advance steps in this area that the Borough itself could take to ‘free up’ some bus resource.

7.6 The Revenue Side of the Equation

7.6.1 Although, as stated above, the 2013 review reported that it carefully balanced the vehicle requirement so that no additional bus resource was required, it did not consider the effect on revenue. Thus while the proposals may have contained costs broadly at the then current levels (although TfL disagreed), the revenue position may well have significantly worsened, a position with which TfL concurred (see 9.2).

7.7 Evaluation of the Proposals

7.7.1 ETUG produced a series of eight Appendices to accompany the proposals, but in the main these contained a tabular representation of the proposals in different forms rather than detailed analysis, justifications for and assessments of the impact of the individual suggestions.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ The 2013 Methodology ▪ 73 Page 96

8Comparison with TfL Methodology 8

8.1 TfL Methodology

8.1.1 TfL Bus Service Planning is based on meeting passengers’ priorities:

 A comprehensive route network, serving all areas throughout the week.

 In Enfield, 95% of residents are within 400 metres (five minutes’ walk) of the network and virtually all are within eight minutes’ walk from the network (similar to the London borough average);

 As simple a network as possible, comprising services and routes that are easy to understand;

 Services at ‘turn up and go’ frequencies (‘turn up and go’ is defined by TfL as at least every twelve minutes compared to the at least every ten minutes commonly used elsewhere), wherever this can be justified.

 Excellent reliability and punctuality, delivering predictable journey times.

8.1.2 However growing budgetary pressures mean that cost effectiveness is also now a key consideration and so TfL is committed to delivering the best value to passengers from the resources which fares revenue and subsidy can purchase.

8.1.3 The main drivers behind TfL service change proposals are:

 land-use and transport network changes;

 stakeholder aspirations;

 policy in other sectors; and

 reliability.

8.1.4 The requirements and inputs from these four key factors are drawn together in the detailed development of schemes. These are then subject to four tests in order to determine if they are:

 Affordable – within current expenditure limits and taking advantage of any available external funding (such as s106 developer contributions).

 Beneficial – all potential benefits are realised and maximised and, where possible, quantified together with an assessment of the impact on existing users.

 TfL rejects any proposal with a cost-benefit ratio lower than 1.6:1 and prefers that it be 2:1 or better;

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Comparison with TfL Methodology ▪ 74 Page 97

 Consistent with the original objective(s) and any modifications that may have been required as part of the consultative process during their development.

 Deliverable - where:

 the road network is or can be made suitable for use by buses;

 all necessary bus infrastructure (such as stops, turning facilities and layover areas) is or will be in place; and

 the operator has, or will be able to secure, any additional resources that are necessary.

8.2 Demand Matching

8.2.1 ‘Demand Matching’ is the term used by TfL for taking a more market-based approach to bus service provision and fundamentally allocates resource to flows in line with passenger usage. It is data-driven and has been used to implement a series of changes to routes mainly in Central London.

8.2.2 TfL identifies any change in bus usage by looking at historic and current demand for buses and matches this with the current service level.

8.2.3 TfL has two main datasets to measure usage:

 ‘Keypoints’ data is a roadside loading survey undertaken at a number of key points along the route.

 ODX uses Oyster and contactless data gathered from customers by point of use. It also models a proportion of alighting trips based on other transactions.

8.2.4 This data enables TfL to see where it is providing buses with excess capacity or where (and when) services are over capacity. Any changes or proposals are appraised by balancing the cost or saving against the customer benefit or disbenefit attributable to each proposal. This also takes into account changes in revenue.

8.3 Comparison with ETUG Methodology

8.3.1 In determining the degree to which TfL is meeting its commitment to the provision of a comprehensive network it has, over the years, developed its PTAL criteria, explained in detail in section 2.6. We understand that ETUG did have access to this data but opted for a bespoke approach that it believed better identified priority locations. Consequently it identified areas of poor transport accessibility through a combination of their absolute population and their Index of Multiple Deprivation ranking. Neither of these factors plays a

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Comparison with TfL Methodology ▪ 75 Page 98

part in TfL’s evaluation and so it is perhaps unsurprising that the ETUG proposals contained many elements that were not seen as priorities by TfL.

8.3.2 A further aspect of the ETUG proposals was a desire to introduce direct links between most parts of the LBE. Whilst it is true that a requirement to change is a deterrent to making journeys by public transport the rationale behind the reluctance to do so is largely due to three factors:

 uncertainty – will the passenger get halfway and then be left stranded when the second journey fails to operate?;

 cost – the requirement to pay two fares to complete a single journey and

 waiting – there are two lots of waiting in an interchange trip.

8.3.3 The principle of connecting ‘everywhere to everywhere’ leads to a more complex network at lower frequencies. Within the LBE the frequency with which most services currently operate means that, in the event of a connecting journey failing to operate, the longest delay will be thirty minutes and in many cases it will be under ten minutes. Whilst this is without doubt an inconvenience it will not be the major problem that it could be elsewhere when hourly headways are common even in relatively well populated areas.

8.3.4 The cost element has been eliminated by the introduction of the ‘Hopper’ fare that now delivers unlimited bus travel within the period of validity (marketed as one hour but in fact 70 minutes due to the leeway allowed). There will be few two-part journeys that cannot be made with these tickets and in any case price-capping on Oyster and Contactless Payment Cards operates after three bus journeys so any return trip involving two connecting journeys in each direction is caught by the cap.

8.3.5 A further key element of the ETUG proposals was a transfer of resources from the eastern to the western part of the LBE in order to deliver an equality of provision. ETUG had no patronage data to justify or indeed reject this reallocation and the information that we have subsequently received from TfL is that the current distribution reflects the fact that demand for bus travel is far higher in the east of the Borough than in the west.

8.3.6 Thus the suggested redistribution would move resources from where passenger numbers are high to where they are lower with little prospect that the growth in lower use areas will compensate for the loss of existing patronage. Consequently such changes are likely to be neither beneficial nor affordable and therefore not cost effective.

8.3.7 It may not have been the initial intention, but the ETUG proposals dealt with a service as a ‘delivery unit’ and the proposals focussed on changes to an existing pattern, re-using existing service numbers. In some ways this is credible as it minimises the degree of change, but also adds significant constraints in the process.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Comparison with TfL Methodology ▪ 76 Page 99

8.3.8 TfL’s approach is more pragmatic, focussing on the need for a series of links from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘A’ to ‘C’, ‘B’ to ‘D’ etc. and where demand levels match these can be combined into a service. It does not start with ‘what needs to be done with service 121?’ (for example) as a basis for change.

8.3.9 The sum of the ETUG proposals suggested a ‘big bang’ change with substantial network change at a single date (although there were certain revisions it identified as priorities, which could be separated out). All evidence is that this is disliked by passengers and causes significant immediate revenue loss, as well as reputational harm. TfL’s preferred method of change is incremental, illustrated by its phased suggestions for new services through Meridian Water.

8.3.10 There is a belief amongst LBE elected members and others in the community that TfL’s current approach to bus network planning does not meet some unquantified (and possibly unquantifiable) demand for bus links within the LBE. Two particular perceived shortcomings of which we were made aware are the lack of:

 A direct service between Arnos Grove and Palmers Green (currently requires the use of services 232 and 121 with a change at the junction of North Circular Road and Green Lanes and a typical journey time of 24 minutes during the day): and

 A lack of any service to Forty Hall Country Park, the main entrance to which is on Forty Hill some 700 metres (around nine minutes’ walk) from the Forty Hill stop (actually on Myddleton Avenue just before its junction with Baker Street and Clay Hill) on the route of services 191 and W10. The former is a high frequency service, operating at least every ten minutes during the day.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Comparison with TfL Methodology ▪ 77 Page 100 Page 101

9Were the Proposals Realistic? 9

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This section examines whether the proposals set out in the 2013 report were actually cost neutral.

9.2 TfL Assessment

9.2.1 TfL’s assessment of the ETUG proposals was contained in its 2016 presentation ‘Enfield Bus Review – Summary of Outcomes’ and the TfL estimate of their impact upon resources and costs is contained in Table 25. TfL’s conclusions differ markedly from those of ETUG – far from being resource and cost neutral they calculate that implementation of the ETUG proposals in their entirety would:

 increase the PVR by 19 buses;

 incur an additional annual cost in excess of £6,000,000; and

 result in the breaking of almost 20,000 journeys a day that were currently made on direct services.

9.2.2 There are some large disparities in resource calculations. We are not in a position to comment on which may be right or wrong as we do not know the methodology employed by either ETUG or TfL to calculate resources. It is possible that there were significant differences in running time estimates and/or appropriate layover times.

9.2.3 It should, however, be noted that the ETUG proposal to completely withdraw service 349 Ponders End – Edmonton – Tottenham – Stamford Hill is not included in the TfL analysis in Table 25. At present this has a PVR of 14 and if taken into consideration would amend the projected PVR figures to a reduction of three and an increase of 16 under the ETUG and TfL methodologies respectively. What is certain, however, is that much of ETUG’s resource available for redeployment came from the proposal to withdraw this frequent main road route, which lies outside the LBE for broadly a third of its route.

9.2.4 In the same way that we lack sufficient background data to fully test the validity of the ETUG proposals we do not have access to the calculations that underpin TfL’s conclusions regarding the resource requirement, the consequent financial impact and the effect upon existing travel patterns. However we concur with TfL’s comments regarding the:

 breaking of existing links, some of which appear to be significant;

 instances of over and under provision;

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Were the Proposals Realistic? ▪ 79 Page 102

 extension of provision to areas of minimal demand; and

 a seeming lack of consideration regarding the availability of terminal facilities at certain points on the suggested network. This is a particular concern since in many cases the LBE is the Highway Authority for the locations involved.

9.3 Responsible Body

9.3.1 We must consider the way in which the original review was carried out. ETUG and the LBE effectively proposed a major revision to services within and surrounding the LBE which was then presented to TfL almost as a fait accompli.

9.3.2 As TfL is the statutory body responsible for designing, overseeing and procuring the operation of bus services across London, we feel it was unwise to exclude TfL from the consultation and network redesign process. To have included one or more officers from TfL in the working group would have added balance, enabled proposals to be checked against usage data and prevented the negative feedback which resulted.

9.3.3 It is also unwise to have such proposals in the public domain as there is likely to be significant public opinion which adds unnecessary pressure to adopt, or reject, certain proposals before they have even been validated. For example, such an unfavourable response to ‘lack of progress’ was published by the Palmers Green Community in 201515

9.3.4 TfL favours incremental network changes rather than network-wide upheaval. This is obvious in that is has taken on board some of the ideas from the ETUG review independently, for example:

 the enhancement to service W10 to provide an Enfield Town to NMUH link; and

 the agreement with ETUG on some of the ways to serve Meridian Water.

9.3.5 It is also likely to respond favourably to proposals for change driven by specific factors – new development; changes to major facilities; reliability issues and so on. For example, we believe that if it was felt that delays caused to service 121 by Enfield Lock Level Crossing resulted in unreasonably poor reliability on the western half of the route, TfL would seek evidence and, if proven, take action, perhaps by splitting the route.

15 https://www.palmersgreencommunity.org.uk/pgc/public-transport/677-the-enfield-bus-review-will-it-ever-be- implemented

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Were the Proposals Realistic? ▪ 80

Table 25: TfL Assessment of the Impact of ETUG Proposals

PVR Impact TfL Annual Daily ETUG TfL Estimated Broken ETUG Target Service ETUG Proposal Estimate Estimate Cost (£) Trips Comments Extend from Enfield Chase to Waltham 231 Cross via Chase Farm Hospital Divert via Holtwhites Hill, Chase Side, London Road, Bush Hill Park and Lincoln 313 Road to the Nags Head 500 317 Withdraw 400 318 Extend from NMUH to Enfield Town Amend to serve Chase Farm Hospital in lieu of service W9 and extend to Barnet Creates excess capacity at Chase Farm Page 103 377 General Hospital 300 Hospital Extend to Chase Farm Hospital with a Breaks trips to/from Bush Hill Park, Potters frequency reduction to 8 buses per hour in Bar, Southbury Road, Lea Valley, Chingford the morning peak and 7.5 in the afternoon and Southgate Improving 329 (currently 10 and 8 respectively) Access to Creates crowding on Green Lanes and Hospitals W9 Withdraw (see 125, 141 and 377) +9 +6 £1,570,000 700 White Hart Lane Split service into two - Enfield Lock Station to Enfield Town and Enfield Island Village 121 to Wood Green via Mollison Avenue 3,000 Creates excess capacity on Southbury Road Breaks trips to/from Mollison Avenue, Enfield Lock, Enfield Island Village, Split service into two - Waltham Cross to Hertford Road (north of Ponders End) and Level Enfield Island Village and Enfield Chase to Edmonton Crossing NMUH via Southbury Road and Hertford Closure 491 Road -2 +8 £1,760,000 2,100 Very expensive 192 Route curtailed at Edmonton Green -8 -1 -£330,000 2,900

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Were the Proposals Realistic? ▪ 81

PVR Impact TfL Annual Daily ETUG TfL Estimated Broken ETUG Target Service ETUG Proposal Estimate Estimate Cost (£) Trips Comments Diverted to Meridian Water via Lansdowne Breaks trips to/from Chase Farm Hospital 259 Road and Northumberland Park 2,400 and Edmonton Green/Fore Street Route curtailed at Northumberland Park No bus service to/from Plevna Road 341 station 400 W6 route not suitable for double deck Route extended to Picketts Lock and operation converted from single to double deck No service into Tottenham and Edmonton Supporting W6 operation from Finsbury Park, Holloway and Kings Regeneration Cross & Improving Route curtailed to terminate at Enfield Access to Town and diverted from Picketts Lock to No service to Angel Road from Manor Employment W8 Tottenham Hale 2,900 House, Essex Road and Green Lanes Extend route to Winchmore Hill Sainsbury's Page 104 125 (part replacement of W9) No terminal area available at Sainsbury's Extend route to Winchmore Hill via Palmers 141 Green (part replacement of W9) Creates excess capacity on Green Lanes No direct service to Arnos Grove from 298 Curtail route at Southgate 500 Cockfosters and Cat Hill Extend route to serve the Hoe Only provides a limited, one way service on Lane/Carterhatch Road and Ordnance Road Carterhatch Road and Ordnance Road 327 areas No demand for bus travel on Whitewebbs Tackling Increase the frequency to four buses per Lane Areas of Low hour and amend the route to serve Arnos Accessibility W10 Grove, Crews Hill and Forty Hall +11 +14 £2,600,000 Very expensive No bus service to Carterhatch Lane east of Great Cambridge Road Breaks trips to/from Chase Side, Improving Amend route to run between Waltham Edmonton, Brimsdown (Bell Lane and Bus/Rail Cross and Tottenham Hale via Hertford Brimsdown Avenue), Enfield Town and Interchange 191 Road and Fore Street +1 +3 £490,000 3,700 Southbury Road Total (Without Withdrawal of 349) +11 +30 £6,090,000 19,800

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Were the Proposals Realistic? ▪ 82 Page 105

10Assessing the Network 10

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 This section sets out the scoping for a new review of the bus network in LB Enfield.

10.2 Understanding the Network

10.2.1 The current network has evolved over the years with adjustments made to meet individual requirements or issues at the time that they arose. Wholesale recasting of the network in the way proposed in the ETUG report is alien to the incremental changes favoured by TfL. Its wariness of such an approach will have been reinforced by the fact that ETUG produced its proposals without detailed knowledge of the patronage and travel patterns on the existing services. We understand that its ideas were informed by considerable local knowledge and experience but this was not sufficient for TfL to simply accept the proposals. Although local knowledge is valuable, quantifiable information with regards to patronage, travel patterns and route costing is fundamental when proposing significant changes and assessing their impact.

10.3 The Operating Environment

10.3.1 The environment in which TfL is providing its bus services has changed dramatically. Patronage has fallen in every year since 2013/4 and in 2017/8 had dropped to a similar level as that recorded in 2008/9. There are various reasons for this including journey time and reliability, improvements in rail services and the decision to cease accepting cash fares with effect from July 2014.

10.3.2 These changes have had a significant impact upon TfL bus service revenue which has been worsened by the freeze on pay as you go fares implemented as part of a Mayoral pledge from May 2016 (estimated to cost TfL £640 million over its four year life).

10.3.3 In September 2016 the ‘Hopper’ fare was introduced allowing users to make two bus journeys within one hour (actually 70 minutes) for the flat fare of £1.50. In the first year of operation more than 100 million journeys were made using these tickets. In January 2018 ‘Hopper’ fare conditions were amended to allow unlimited bus journeys within the period of validity. TfL estimated that an additional 13,000 people a day would benefit from this upgrade. These tickets have removed the financial penalty previously incurred in making two part journeys and this will have lessened the desire to provide through services linking all parts of the borough.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 83 Page 106

10.3.4 In addition to the effect of the fares freeze TfL has had to cope with the complete withdrawal of central government grants related to day to day running costs. This was announced in 2013 and these payments were completely phased out in 2018, having stood at £591 million in 2015.

10.3.5 All these factors have led to TfL introducing a programme of demand matching in order to ensure that services operate at frequencies that are aligned with their passenger numbers. They have also instigated a programme which will rationalise routes in the centre of London, where there was substantial duplication of routes together with much more marked passenger decline. Alongside this the opening of Crossrail was anticipated to cause a significant transfer from bus to rail travel.

10.3.6 The resources released from central areas were, at least in part, to be redeployed in order to enhance services in outer London. Despite the ongoing delay to Crossrail significant parts of the programme have still been implemented, although the redeployment of these to outer London is still to be substantially realised.

10.3.7 Of the eight services within the LBE that have been ‘demand matched’ seven have been reduced in frequency whilst the eighth has gained some peak journeys on weekdays and seen the Sunday service frequency increased. All these factors will contribute to TfL’s reluctance to implement speculative service improvements or additions. We suggest, therefore, that with the exception of Meridian Water, where the need for extra resource is accepted, any further network review will have to be at least resource neutral.

10.4 Patronage Levels

10.4.1 The current patronage of services is a key piece of knowledge. TfL’s available data is comprehensive, particularly its origin and destination (ODX) data. This can, among other things:

a) Provide information on passengers boarding each service down to bus stop level;

b) Predict alighting points based on subsequent trips;

c) Summarise total boardings by stop or area;

d) Be used to estimate volumes of bus to rail interchange at stations, or;

e) Show estimated ultimate destinations for passengers boarding at a set point.

10.4.2 A list of current services in LBE with resources (where PVR = number of buses required to provide the service) and patronage figures attached is in Table 26 below and the pattern of boarders across the LBE is shown in Figure D.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 84 Page 107

10.4.3 The patronage figures, dating from November 2018, were supplied by TfL and include all passengers recorded as boarding within the LBE using Oyster, Contactless or Freedom passes, uplifted by 8.6% to estimate those passengers using paper or magnetic card tickets. Table 26 shows Weekday data only and excludes school and night services. There is a total of around 195,000 passengers boarding buses within the LBE on an average weekday.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 85 Page 108

Table 26: Bus Services in LB Enfield – Resources and Average Estimated Weekday Patronage

Service Route Garage PVR16 Mon-Sat Sunday Evenings Patronage 34 Barnet Church - Walthamstow Bus Station Potters Bar 22 8 12 12 11,693 102 Edmonton Green - Brent Cross Palmers Green 25 9 12 12 7,113 121 Enfield Island Village - Turnpike Lane Enfield 21 10 15 15 19,146 125 Finchley, St Mary's - Winchmore Hill Potters Bar 13 10 15 15 5,107 141 Palmer's Green - London Bridge Palmers Green 26 6-7 12 12 2,093 144 Edmonton Green - Muswell Hill, Broadway Wood Green 16 8-9 10 12 6,058 149 Edmonton Green - London Bridge Tottenham 38 8-9 8 8 4,842 184 Barnet, Bells Hill - Turnpike Lane Station Wood Green 19 8-9 12 12 1,615

191 Edmonton Green BS - Brimsdown Station Northumberland Park 18 10 15 20 13,166 Page 109 192 Enfield, Little Park Gardens - Tottenham Hale Northumberland Park 14 10 15 15 7,530 217 Turnpike Lane BS - Waltham Cross BS South Mimms 11 12 20 20 6,690 221 Edgware - Turnpike Lane BS Wood Green 23 8 12 12 765 231 Turnpike Lane BS - Enfield Chase Station Potters Bar 7 15 20 20 3,721 232 Turnpike Lane BS - Brentfield, Mitchell Way Cricklewood 13 15 20 30 1,932 251 Edgware - Arnos Grove Canons Park 13 12 20 20 835 259 Edmonton Green - King's Cross Edmonton 22 7-8 12 12 4,182 279 Manor House Station - Waltham Cross BS Enfield 29 6-7 10 10 21,058 298 Potters Bar Station - Arnos Grove Station South Mimms 5 20 30 30 2,333 299 Cockfosters Station - Muswell Hill South Mimms 7 15 30 20 2,347 307 Barnet Hospital - Brimsdown Station Potters Bar 15 10 20 20 8,569 313 Potters Bar - Chingford Station Enfield 7 20 30 20-30 2,832

16 Peak Vehicle Figures come from http://www.londonbusroutes.net/

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 87

Service Route Garage PVR16 Mon-Sat Sunday Evenings Patronage 317 Enfield, Little Park Gardens - Waltham Cross Enfield 5 20 30 30 2,272 318 North Middlesex Hospital - Stamford Hill Enfield 7 15 20 30 379 327 Waltham Cross - Elsinge Estate South Mimms 1 40 196 329 Turnpike Lane BS - Enfield Little Park Gardens Palmers Green 16 7-8 8 10 12,092 341 Northumberland Park – Tottenham - Waterloo Tottenham 22 10 12 12 450 349 Ponders End - Stamford Hill Enfield 14 10 12 12 8,370 377 Oakwood Station - Ponders End Bus Garage Enfield 4 30 -- 60 1,214 382 Mill Hill East - Southgate Potters Bar 9 15 30 30 1,309 384 Quinta Drive – Barnet - Cockfosters Potters Bar 6 20 30 30 151 399 Hadley Wood Station - Barnet, The Spires South Mimms 0 60 -- -- 9

444 Turnpike Lane BS - Chingford Station Lea Interchange 11 12 15 20 3,736 Page 110 491 Waltham Cross- North Middlesex Hospital Potters Bar 9 20 30 20 4,747 610 Luton - Hatfield - Potters Bar - Cockfosters Hatfield 4 60 -- -- n/a 611 Hatfield - Potters Bar - Enfield Hatfield 0 * -- -- n/a W4 Oakthorpe Park - Tottenham Hale, Ferry Rd Wood Green 14 10 15 15 207 W6 Edmonton Green - Southgate Enfield 9 10 15 20-30 7,000 W8 Chase Farm Hospital - Pickett's Lock Centre Potters Bar 15 8 12 12 13,530 W9 Chase Farm Hospital - Southgate Station South Mimms 7 15 30 30 3,062 W10 Enfield - Crews Hill Northumberland Park 1 60 -- -- 73

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 88

Figure D: Pattern of Bus Boarders across the LBE – Average Weekday Nov 2018 Page 111

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 89

Figure E: PTAL Accessibility Map – Origin: Enfield Civic Centre Page 112

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 90 Page 113

10.5 Accessibility

10.5.1 TfL’s Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) software is a powerful tool capable of measuring the accessibility of areas as small as one hundred square metres. PTAL is allocated in six levels, numbered one to six where six represents a high level of accessibility and 1 a low level of accessibility. Levels one and six are further sub-divided in the model into two sub-levels to provide greater clarity. A further score (Level 0) applies where that point is not regarded as accessible to the network. All public transport modes are included.

10.5.2 The measure therefore reflects:

 Walking time from the point-of interest to the public transport access points;

 The reliability of the service modes available;

 The number of services available within the catchment; and

 The level of service at the public transport access points - i.e. average waiting time.

But it does not consider:

 The speed or utility of accessible services;

 Crowding, including the ability to board services; or

 Ease of interchange.

10.5.3 PTAL can also be used to model the changes in accessibility caused by future changes or what would result from service change proposals. Figure E shows a sample output based on 100m squares with the origin as Enfield Civic Centre, with stops on routes serving the origin point directly shown as small red blobs. Level six is red through to Level one in purple and the hatched grey squares are Level 0.

10.6 Connectivity

10.6.1 TfL also has a Time Mapping Analysis (TIM) measure to assess connectivity through the transport network or, in other words, how far a traveller can go expressed as a series of travel time catchments.

10.6.2 The TIM tool allows travel times to be plotted on the map for any location in London with user-selected attributes including travel mode and time period. The tool also displays statistics such as the population or number of jobs within a time band.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 91 Page 114

10.6.3 Figure F below shows time mapping, again based on Enfield Civic Centre, with bands with maximum travel times at fifteen (dark brown), thirty (red), 45 (orange) and sixty (yellow) minutes of travel shown.

Figure F: Sample WebCAT Time Mapping – Public Transport Journey Times from Enfield Civic Centre

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Assessing the Network ▪ 92 Page 115

11Scoping for Phase Two of the Study 11

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 Our findings related to the 2013 study in many ways illuminate the way in which the next reappraisal should be performed and its underlying methodology.

11.2 Approach for Phase 2 of the Work

11.2.1 We suggest that a much closer working relationship needs to be established with TfL for Phase 2. Indeed LBE should be seen to be offering to help it do some work which is outside its resource capability. This would involve TfL providing access to the substantial patronage and travel pattern data that its systems produce and then assisting with analysing them in a detail that TfL’s finite staffing resources are unlikely to allow.

11.2.2 It would thus be possible to identify those areas:

 in which the current network is under or over providing;

 where strengthening is required and there is growth potential;

 where there is significant interchange between bus and rail (or Tube);

 where economies could be made without adverse effect on the travelling public; and

 the potential to better link individual route sections of comparable demand into new or amended services.

11.2.3 At places where significant levels of interchange are found the LBE will have a key role in assessing possible steps to make interchange easier by assessment of stop locations, stop to stop walking routes and waiting facilities.

11.2.4 While through links are desirable, three factors must be borne in mind:

a) That provision of a greater number of through links will complicate the network;

b) In suburban London traffic conditions, frequencies which could be delivered in theory by coordinating timings of services along a key main route from multiple origins would seldom be delivered in practice;

c) Through routes constructed by joining services together into one longer service can lead to increased unreliability and export delay from one area to another that is otherwise totally unaffected.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Scoping for Phase Two of the Study ▪ 93 Page 116

11.3 Deliverability

11.3.1 Given the local knowledge contained within ETUG it is surprising that some of its proposals contained the use of roads that on initial examination appear unsuitable for the operation of the proposed bus size.

11.3.2 A particular case in point is the suggested amendment to service 327 which proposed that it used Ferndale Road, Ashton Road, Park Road and Mandeville Road to travel between Ordnance Road and Hertford Road. Setting aside the fact that Ashton Road is gated at its mid-point (this may not have been so at the time that the ETUG plan was produced, and could be modified into a bus gate), many of these roads are residential, narrow and have few parking restrictions which results in a considerable amount of on street parking – in turn this would inhibit the ability of any appropriately sized bus to pass through the estate without significant delay.

11.3.3 Furthermore suggestions were made for services to terminate at locations where there are no suitable points for buses to stand (such as Winchmore Hill Sainsbury’s) or turn (Enfield Lock station to the west of the railway line) without significantly obstructing other road traffic.

11.3.4 Such shortcomings undermined the credibility of the ETUG report and must be avoided in future sets of proposals. This is again where a close relationship with TfL will be beneficial and we must demonstrate that the practical consequences have not been ignored. It is important that any new proposals are capable of being delivered in a practical way. To this end all proposals should be ‘pressure tested’ in the local environment before being finalised.

11.4 Relevance of Objectives

11.4.1 It is now over five years since the completion of the original report. Some then anticipated changes have now happened while others have been delayed or are unlikely to be completed in the foreseeable future. Falling into the former group are:

 the reorganisation of primary healthcare, particularly the transfer of maternity care away from CFH, the downgrading of its Accident and Emergency department to an urgent care centre and a greater focus on NMUH for residents in the LBE;

 the completion of the LB Enfield School Expansion Programme; and

 completion of many of the housing development and regeneration projects.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Scoping for Phase Two of the Study ▪ 94 Page 117

11.4.2 In the latter group are:

 the installation of additional tracks on the railway line north of the new Meridian Water station and consequently the pressure to permanently close the level crossings at Brimsdown and Enfield Lock stations; and

 the Meridian Water regeneration project, which is now progressing but will take a number of years to complete.

11.4.3 These altered circumstances will necessarily have had an impact upon the objectives contained within the original report and each of them will require reassessment in order to determine whether or not they remain valid.

11.5 Starting the Project

11.5.1 It is anticipated that Phase 2 would commence with a meeting between the independent advisor, LBE, TfL and any other relevant parties. This would ensure that the project would commence with all parties having a full understanding of objectives, capabilities, desired outcomes and likely timescales. It would also allow a level of expectation of acceptance of the outcomes to be gauged.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Scoping for Phase Two of the Study ▪ 95 Page 118 Page 119

12Conclusions and Recommendations 12

12.1 Conclusions

12.1.1 The stated objectives of the ETUG report are all laudable, but the measure of success used in their achievement is confined to the changes in the number of buses per hour serving each area and the creation of direct links. Much of the rationale behind the ETUG proposals appears to stem from a desire to provide direct links between most parts of the borough.

12.1.2 The report concentrates on ‘routes’ whereas what passengers experience, and what TfL considers in its modelling and evaluation, is the volume of movements between locations using origin and destination data.

12.1.3 Whilst we recognise that interchange introduces an additional element of uncertainty into a journey and is therefore, if required, a disincentive to the use of public transport there appears to have been neither an assessment of the level of demand for the newly created links nor any consideration given to the impact on passengers of breaking existing links.

12.1.4 There is an almost complete lack of detail relating to the way in which ETUG reached its conclusions – the appendices to the main report which we would have expected to contain this supporting evidence are in most cases merely a series of tabular representations of the proposed changes in different formats.

12.1.5 The ETUG report was produced in a substantially different environment – at the time bus patronage in London had grown in seven of the eight previous years and there was the assumption that this trend would continue, with additional resource deployed to cope with passenger growth.

12.1.6 Similarly it was accepted that fare levels would continue to rise in line with inflation thus containing the amount of support required. In contrast the reality is that passenger numbers have fallen in each of the past four years and this, combined with the fares freeze, has resulted in TfL facing an accelerating operating loss on its bus services that amounted to £752 million in 2017/18. There is now little prospect of the introduction of services simply to address perceived accessibility issues in areas with little resident population or the movement of resources from areas of high demand to those where it is lower in the search for an equality of provision that would result in a reduction of revenue.

12.1.7 The Hopper fare has effectively removed the financial penalty incurred by passengers needing to change bus. This lessens the need to recast services to provide through links unless volumes are high, provided the interchange point is convenient and safe.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 97 Page 120

12.1.8 In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that TfL responded to the proposals in the manner that it did. Its reaction shows a focus on retaining existing patronage rather than making changes that might deliver growth but behind which there was little in the way of justification. Nevertheless it did identify a few areas in which the ETUG suggestions could address some shortcomings in the network and has made some progress towards their implementation.

12.1.9 Large scale changes to the network disrupt established travel patterns and thus place at risk a substantial number of passenger journeys. Experience not only in London but elsewhere in the UK has shown that ‘big bang’ network- wide changes lead to severe passenger loss in the short term. Combined with the current financial difficulties this means that incremental adjustments are more likely to be implemented successfully unless developments of significant size, such as at Meridian Water, are involved.

12.1.10 There is also a shift in the spatial planning strategy for London, with a new London Plan currently being brought forward, and Enfield where a consultation has been undertaken on a Local Plan which will see changes to housing and employment growth densities and locations.

12.1.11 Of the seven new links proposed, only one (Enfield Town to NMUH) resolves a shortcoming of the existing network. The rationale behind the other suggestions has either been overtaken by events (the through Enfield Town to Arnos Grove link) or was not clearly articulated and justified. The straitened financial circumstances that face TfL at present preclude the introduction of speculative services with no immediately apparent passenger base and / or which break established links, thus explaining why the majority of these suggestions failed to find favour.

12.1.12 In the short term at least, the adjustments to services made as part of the TfL ‘demand matching’ process have overwhelmingly comprised frequency reductions. The initially stated aim of redistributing the saved resources from the central area to outer London appears to have been overtaken by the need to reduce costs and has encompassed frequency reductions in the suburbs too.

12.1.13 Much of the housing development within the LBE focussed either upon the renewal of existing sites (such as Ladderswood) or a change of use of sites with already established demand for travel (CFH). Only Meridian Water is of a sufficient size to warrant adjustments and additions to the existing network and the much slower than expected rate of progress there on realising the designs has meant that none has been required as yet.

12.1.14 Improvements to rail services, in terms of both frequency enhancements and the introduction of new rolling stock, are likely to see demand for travel on north – south corridors shift away from the bus. East – West corridors where there is no such competition will be much less affected.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 98 Page 121

12.1.15 We do not doubt that the ETUG proposals stemmed from a sincere wish to improve the bus network in the LBE. Whilst many of the proposals would deliver benefits these are achieved at the cost of a significant change to the current service pattern and the established passenger movements it carries. In the present circumstances a proposal that puts existing passengers and revenue at risk in the search for an unquantified amount of potential patronage cannot expect to be viewed favourably.

12.1.16 It is not surprising that, given that its remit was to focus on the bus network in the LBE, ETUG did not appear to consider in detail the impact of its proposed changes upon provision within neighbouring Boroughs. TfL does not have this luxury – it has to balance the differing priorities and objectives of all the London Boroughs, the targets set by the Mayor of London and its own financial position. Consequently its view of suggested changes will always be from a more strategic standpoint and whilst it may recognise that some deficiencies exist within the LBE it is likely to be the case that some ways of rectifying them would create greater problems elsewhere.

12.1.17 ETUG presented its proposals as being resource neutral. It became clear that this related purely to its calculation of the impact upon the number of vehicles required and that any changes to bus hours and miles (which account for a far greater proportion of operating costs) and change of bus type had not been considered.

12.1.18 TfL’s assessment was that, far from being resource neutral, the ETUG changes, disregarding its proposal to withdraw service 349 in its entirety, would necessitate the inclusion of an extra thirty vehicles in the London bus fleet, equivalent to an additional annual cost of more than £6 million.

12.1.19 We have not had access to the calculations that underpinned this conclusion but believe that TfL’s figures, produced with detailed knowledge of the network, the way in which services are operated, likely contract costs and with a full awareness of what running times are achievable are more likely to be accurate than the estimates produced by ETUG. Moreover in the current economic climate the deployment of additional resources is now very much less likely than when the report was written.

12.1.20 For the LBE the key to producing viable proposals is a keen understanding of the detail of the current network and the production of a plan of incremental changes which all serve to improve on the status quo, both as specific initiatives and as part of a macro or long-term improvement. Experience elsewhere shows that ‘big bang’ alterations to networks negatively impact patronage, consumer confidence and certain routes’ viability and given TfL’s established antipathy to such a practice, wholesale changes as proposed in the ETUG report have very little chance of being accepted.

12.1.21 We understand that the data held by TfL is substantial but that the process of analysis and evaluation will not be rapid due to its pressure of work. It is,

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 99 Page 122

however, vital that it is undertaken thoroughly. In order for proposals for adjustments to the LBE bus network to be considered in a favourable light by TfL they must:

 be accompanied by robust supporting data that demonstrates not only the benefits of the proposed change but also that there would be few adverse impacts on other services or other areas;

 be likely to lead to patronage increase;

 contain details of the terminal and layover arrangements to be employed, ensuring that these accord with current TfL standards and requirements;

 be designed such that the proposed route contains only roads suitable for use by buses;

 deliver value for money; and

 be capable of being delivered in a practical manner.

12.2 Recommendations

12.2.1 Any future proposals to TfL will require much more robust preparation, taking into account changes that would be made both within the LBE and in those other boroughs through which the affected services pass.

12.2.2 A more complete understanding of travel patterns through the analysis of bus service data is required, followed by an extension of the TfL ‘demand matching’ in order to identify areas of over and under provision and the potential to reallocate resources in a way that would be cost neutral but revenue beneficial. This should be linked to an assessment of accessibility using TfL’s established tools.

12.2.3 Consequently an initial assessment of the performance of the current network is required in order to provide a sound basis upon which development proposals can be based.

12.2.4 Suggestions for service adjustments or enhancements are only likely to receive favourable consideration if they address a quantifiable shortcoming in the network or are made in response to new developments of a substantial size.

12.2.5 Consequently such proposals need to be backed by careful research and a compelling business case. Overall, the probability of achieving success in terms of increased passenger numbers by breaking established through links to achieve new ones is generally low.

12.2.6 In order to fully assess the performance of the bus network within the LBE and to produce viable proposals for improvements it is necessary to:

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 100 Page 123

 Fully understand the existing patterns of travel;

 be aware of operational issues that have a negative impact upon service reliability and punctuality;

 take an holistic view of the north London bus network so that the resolution of problems within the LBE does not create new problems or move them elsewhere;

 recognise that the existing LBE bus network is comprehensive;

 acknowledge that action to rectify perceived gaps in provision using conventional bus services is unlikely to be warranted in areas where the resident population is few in number; and

 recognise that the environment in which TfL now operates is markedly different to the one that existed when the ETUG proposals were prepared.

12.2.7 Consequently we recommend that a detailed network review, informed by patronage and operational data from TfL, is undertaken.

12.2.8 That data for bus services in the LBE regarding patronage, passenger origins (and interpolated destinations), service reliability and punctuality for a representative period be obtained from TfL.

12.2.9 Its analysis will allow identification of the key links in the network and can be used to undertake a high-level assessment of whether their current frequencies are adequate, require enhancement or could be reduced. A more detailed analysis will be required in order to construct specific and detailed recommendations which satisfy TfL’s service planning criteria.

12.2.10 TfL’s standard format for service design is to create services by joining together key links with similar levels of passenger flows and proper analysis of this will demonstrate where the original justification for individual services remains valid and where adjustments are required. The identification of the latter will be the primary focus when constructing proposals for changes that will deliver improvements to the residents of LBE that are also designed to help TfL contain costs.

12.2.11 That this work be commissioned as Phase 2 of the LBE’s review of bus services.

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ July 19 Review of Bus Services Phase 1 ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 101 This page is intentionally left blank Page 125 Borough Survey 2019 Progress report

Earlier this year, we asked more than 2,700 elected representatives and non-elected officers from London’s boroughs and the City of London to give us their views. Thank you to everyone who responded to our survey. This is what you told us:

Your transport priorities We asked you how you feel about the following priorities for investment:

Reducing pollution and contributing to a cleaner environment 74 21 311

Making London’s streets safer and more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists 65 27 4 2 2

Improving accessibility on London’s 63 34 211 public transport network

Improving London’s bus network 54 40 421

Improving London’s Tube network 48 45 421

Infrastructure projects that enable regeneration and new housing 46 46 6 1 2

Improving connectivity between London and the surrounding area 41 47 66

Improving river, rail, road and air connectivity for freight 26 54 7 2 12

Building more river crossings and bridges in London 20 38 23 5 15

020406080100

▀ Strongly support ▀ Tend to support ▀ Tend to oppose ▀ Strongly oppose ▀ Don’t know

These figures have been rounded up to the nearest whole number, so may not add up to 100 per cent. Page 126

Improving the bus network Accessibility Overall, you are supportive of good Step-free access and other infrastructure transport connectivity. Improving London’s to improve accessibility, such as room for Tube and bus network are both viewed mobility scooters on buses and the design as a priority for investment. of bus shelters, is very important to you.

1 in 10 96% councillors confirmed that support improving improving the bus network accessibility on London’s is their number one priority transport network for investment

Better air quality Safety matters Boosting air quality and creating a better Many of you view the investment in environment for walking and cycling are cycling infrastructure in your local area seen as priorities for investment. as a key driver to tackle air pollution and climate change. 65% said reducing air 24% pollution from said making London’s streets safer road traffic for cyclists and pedestrians should is in their top be our number one priority three priorities for TfL

Outer vs inner London Outer London transport connections are a key concern for you with some areas lacking good public transport options and relying heavily on private vehicles. Developing the commuter rail network is therefore the number one priority for 30 per cent of outer London stakeholders as opposed to inner London stakeholders prioritising the extension of the Bakerloo line. Page 127

Your most supported TfL transport policies by area

West London North London East London Improving the Tube Reducing pollution Improving accessibility 95% 95% 99% Supporting regeneration Improving the Tube Improving the Tube and housing 93% 98% 95% Improving the bus network Improving the bus network Improving the bus network 90% 95% 95% Reducing pollution 95%

Enfield

Barnet

Harrow Haringey Waltham Forest Redbridge

Havering Hillingdon Brent Camden Islington Hackney City of Barking and London Newham Dagenham Ealing City of Tower Westminster Hamlets Kensington and Chelsea Southwark Greenwich Hounslow Hammersmith and Fulham Lambeth Bexley Richmond Wandsworth Lewisham upon Thames

Kingston Merton upon Thames Bromley

Sutton Croydon South London Central London Improving accessibility Improving accessibility 96% 98% Improving the bus network Reducing pollution 94% 98% Improving connections Improving the Tube between London and 96% other areas 94% Making it safer and easier to walk and cycle Reducing pollution 96% 94% Page 128

Getting the message through We asked you about your perceptions of TfL More than half of you view TfL as ‘forward looking’ (53 per cent) and ‘caring Makes a positive contribution to the 69 23 8 about its customers to a quality of life in London great extent’ (51 per cent). You often mentioned initiatives

Forward looking 53 37 11 such as Healthy Streets as a key example of this.

Cares about its customers 51 34 15

A more tailored service Is an organisation 49 34 17 I can trust Your number one preference to receive our information is still by a Provides good personalised email, particularly for value for money 46 39 15 for fare-payers participating in our consultations and submitting responses (60 per cent) and to keep up to date with unplanned Communicates openly and honestly 37 44 19 events and disruptions (57 per cent). Since 2017 you are increasingly 020406080100 more open to communicating with us through other forms ▀ To a great extent ▀ To some extent ▀ To no extent of communication. (7-10) (4-6) (3-0)

Listening and collaborating You strongly believe TfL can improve its engagement by showing greater willingness to understand local needs and priorities. To do this you would like us to listen more, consider and include your feedback when it comes to making changes to the transport network. 36% 58% 51% of stakeholders have of stakeholders of stakeholders know a main contact at TfL agree that TfL invites how to approach TfL for them to contribute information on issues to consultations for their organisation +13% +9% +7% improvement improvement improvement Page 129

You said, we did ...

More of you feel TfL is too You have told us that you bureaucratic and slow to act. find the web content for You find it difficult to navigate stakeholders out of date and the different teams within TfL, you struggle to find what and say we take too long to you need. answer your queries.

We acknowledge that this is an Over the coming months we will work issue, which is why we have started with our colleagues to understand refreshing our web content for you. who you talk to and use this The new pages will provide up-to- information to put together a suite date content and easier navigation, of online tools to help you find the including localised project information, most appropriate contacts for your and answers and further guidance to questions so we can speed up our questions relevant to your residents. response times. We will hold stakeholder focus groups to ensure content is relevant and useful, with the new pages in place in early 2020. You feel that TfL does not take your local borough priorities into consideration and therefore doesn’t work with You want more influence you collaboratively. on the decisions we make, particularly on our consultations.

We will continue a programme of Commissioner and senior leadership visits for boroughs so that we can Each year, we run approximately learn about and understand your 40 consultations to ensure we hear priorities. In the coming months, the views of borough representatives, a team of 16 Healthy Streets Officers local people and anyone interested will take up new positions with in our schemes. More often than not, boroughs to help support local the recommendations we receive plans to increase cycling, walking, lead to us revising the scheme in making streets safer for travel and some way. We are now running more improving air quality. We will continue structured early engagement – giving to attend borough transport liaison you an earlier opportunity to shape meetings and analyse our contact with and inform our plans. Over the next councillors to improve our work on 18 months we are also reviewing local issues. our online consultation tool and documents, to make it easier for everyone to understand and comment on proposals, and to see how their feedback has changed our schemes. Page 130

You said, we did ... (continued) How to get in touch: If you would like to contact the Local You told us we need to Communities and Partnerships team continue to improve our with any questions or comments, our engagement. contact details are as follows:

East team (Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Enfield, We have had a lot of positive feedback Hackney, Haringey, Havering, Islington, on the new Local Communities and Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Partnerships team that was set up Waltham Forest) last year to provide a single point of contact for borough representatives. Gary Nolan We want to extend this further [email protected] to ensure you know who to go to (020) 3054 8630 when you want to get in touch. Our engagement with you is at the heart West team of what we do so this is something (Barnet, Brent, Camden, City of we will continue to monitor and work London, Ealing, Hammersmith on, with the initial stages completed & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, this year. Your dedicated borough Hounslow, Kensington & Chelsea, contact will be in touch with you soon Westminster) to discuss how to better tailor our Iain Killingbeck engagement with your borough. [email protected] (020) 7126 4627

South team You want a clearer (Bromley, Croydon, Greenwich, understanding of TfL’s Kingston-upon-Thames, Lambeth, strategies being delivered in Lewisham, Merton, Southwark, your area. Sutton, Richmond-upon-Thames, Wandsworth) Rachel Harkes [email protected] Our improved online borough pages (020) 7126 2266 will help to make the connections between local projects and TfL strategies. In addition, a member If your query is connected to a of the Local Communities and safety-related issue please contact Partnerships team will be talking to our Customer Contact Centre, which you directly to understand how we has special arrangements in place to can better support you to ensure our ensure these are prioritised. strategies are clear and relevant, and 0343 222 1234 take into consideration your needs. (press option 5, then option 1)

About these results This research was carried out between 4 April and 24 May 2019 by ComRes, an independent research agency, on behalf of TfL. 394 borough officers, directors and councillors across London responded to an online survey and 22 stakeholders then took part in in-depth telephone interviews.