Consultation on Possible Changes to Bus Route 224

Consultation on possible changes to bus route 224

Consultation Report April 2015

Consultation on possible changes to bus route 224 Consultation Report

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 2 2 The consultation ...... 2 3 Responses from members of the public ...... 3 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ...... 7

Appendices Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter ...... 10 Appendix B – Letter distribution area ...... 11 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 15

1 Introduction Transport for London recently consulted stakeholders and the public about a proposal to reroute route 224 in the Park Royal area. The consultation took place from 11 November to 23 December 2014

Route 224 operates between Wembley Stadium Station and St. Raphael’s. We are proposing to alter the route in the Park Royal area between Abbey Road and the Central Middlesex Hospital so that it runs via Twyford Abbey Road, Bodiam Way, Lakeside Drive and Coronation Road in both directions, using a bus gate on Twyford Abbey Road. This is subject to the London Borough of Ealing introducing the necessary traffic order to allow the bus gate to be opened and used. These changes will improve transport links to an expanding area of Park Royal.

As part of the new routing, we are proposing to install two new eastbound bus stops and one new westbound bus stop for route 224 on Twyford Abbey Road. One eastbound stop would be located opposite 100 Twyford Abbey Road, and the other would be sited opposite Indigo House. The westbound stop would be located opposite West Twyford Primary School after the junction with Abbeyfields Close. The new bus stops would be served in addition to the existing bus stops on Twyford Abbey Road, Bodiam Way, Lakeside Drive and Coronation Road.

Following this restructuring, the route would no longer serve Iveagh Avenue, Rainsford Road, Whitby Avenue, Abbey Road (between Twyford Abbey Road and Coronation Road), Western Road, Park Royal Road and the Asda internal road. However route 440 (Stonebridge Park – Gunnersbury) will continue to run along Abbey Road, Western Road, Park Royal Road and the Asda internal road.

This report explains the background to the proposal, the consultation and summarises the responses. It will contribute to the decision on whether to go ahead with this proposed change or not.

2 The consultation The consultation was designed to enable TfL to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to route 224.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:  We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned.  We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation.  We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation.

2.1 Consultation objectives The objectives of the consultation were:  To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition for the change  To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions. 2

2.2 Who we consulted The consultation intended to seek the views of people who use the bus routes involved and those who might potentially use the service. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix B and a summary of their responses is given in Section 4.

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online. The dedicated webpage explained the background to the proposal. We invited people to respond by answering a number of questions and leaving comments. We raised awareness of the consultation by sending an email to approximately 5,600 registered Oyster Card holders who have used route 224, and to key stakeholders. We also wrote to approximately 1,200 local residents and businesses. Copies of the consultation materials are shown in Appendix A.

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond via our freepost address (FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS), by emailing [email protected] or by accessing the online consultation where they could let us know their views.

3 Responses from members of the public We received 119 responses from members of the public. There were 113 responses via the website, four via email and two by letter.

3.1 Public consultation results To help us understand more about who replied and their thoughts on the route and proposal, we asked a number of questions;

We asked respondents whether they currently use route 224. Do you use route 224? 90

0 Yes No Not answered Total Number of replies 83 30 6 119 % of total 70 25 5 100 3

Respondents were asked to give us their views on our proposals for route 224.

Are you in favour of this proposal for route 224? 55

0 No Not Yes No Partially Not sure Total opinion answered Number of replies 47 53 11 3 2 3 119 % of total 39459323100

We also asked respondents if they supported the introduction of new bus stops on Twyford Abbey Road.

Are you in favour of the introduction of new bus stops on Twyford Abbey Road? 45

0 Not Not No Yes No Partially answer Total sure opinion ed Number of replies 41 40 12 10 11 5 119 % of total 34 33 10 8 9 5 100

3.2 Additional comments Respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments. Of the 119 responses, there were 84 additional comments about the changes to route 224, 64 comments regarding the introduction of new bus stops on Twyford Abbey Road, and 57 comments on our overall proposals. The tables below summarise the views and suggestions made. A separate document will respond to the main points raised by respondents. Number Comments and suggestions of times raised Generally supportive The proposal is a good idea 14

The new route will be less complicated 5

The proposals will reduce journey times 4

The proposal will improve links to local stations and 3 Wembley town centre

A new stop outside the primary school will improve access 2 for pupils

Few people use the bus stop on Iveagh Avenue 1

This will provide an additional service to complement the 1 226

Twyford Abbey Road is in need of better bus connections. 1

This will improve access to new homes and jobs at the 1 First Central development

This will provide a needed extra service to the Diageo site 1 Generally against Removing the bus gate width restriction will mean faster 21 running traffic and a greater number of heavy vehicles using Twyford Abbey Road

Removing the width restriction will compromise the safety 20 of pupils at West Twyford Primary School

Having stops close to the school entrance is an obstruction 15 and potential safety risk

This change is unnecessary as the proposed new route is 12 already covered by route 226

The proposal will increase congestion on Twyford Abbey 9 Road

The new route will be longer and take more time 6

It will be dangerous having buses run past the primary 6 school

The two new stops outside Indigo House and the primary 5 school are unnecessary as there are two existing stops close by on Bodiam Way

Monitoring the bus gate with CCTV will be insufficient to 4 stop vehicles illegally using it

This change will adversely affect the quality of life for local 4 residents.

Twyford Abbey Road is already congested with parked 4 cars and new stops will make this worse 5

The heavy traffic on Coronation Road will delay this 2 service

The new stop at the east end of Twyford Abbey Road will 2 increase congestion and cause delays

Removing parts of a bus route is not a good idea. 1

The new parking restriction opposite Elveden Road will 1 reduce car parking and create a waiting area for lorries

The change will disadvantage school users 1

This section of Twyford Abbey Road is not wide enough for 1 buses on both sides plus all the other traffic Existing service/reliability

Route 224 should continue to serve Iveagh Avenue 9

Route 224 should continue to serve Asda internal road 8

Increase the frequency of route 226 7

Increase the frequency of route 224 3

In favour of route 224 no longer serving the Asda internal 3 road

Buses on route 224 are always late 1

Increase the frequency of route 440 1

Buses in Brent are filthy 1

Where will pupils get picked up and dropped off by car? 1

Where will the 'school trip' bus park without causing an 1 obstruction?

The proposal doesn’t address the delays to route 224 1 caused by the major traffic problem on Brentfield Road Routeing suggestions

Route 224 should serve Stonebridge Park Station 3

Make the recent temporary routing of route 224 between 2 Harlesden Station via Jubilee Clock, Craven Park & Knatchbull Road permanent

Extend route 224 to Wembley Park 1

Introduce a new bus route instead of changing the 224 1

Route 224 should bypass Central Middlesex Hospital and 1 serve the bus stops on Acton Lane and Abbey Road

Why can't the 224 split with the 226 at Coronation Road to 1 serve the new development and then rejoin at Bodiam way. Other suggestions

Replace the bus gate with a speed ramp to speed up 2 traffic

Install countdown displays at Bodiam Way stops 1

The new bus stops should be larger and set back into 1 pavement to avoid congestion

Can't the bus gate open only when buses want to pass 1 through?

Can additional stops be installed on rte 226 to alleviate the 1 long distance between the westbound stop at Twyford Abbey Road and the westbound stop at Hanger Lane Station 6

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders We received responses from eight stakeholders, shown below:

London Borough of Brent  Support the following aspects of the proposal: o Improved accessibility to major regeneration sites in Park Royal, such as the First Central development site; o Providing a direct connection between the Piccadilly Line at Park Royal and Harlesden, Stonebridge Park and Brent Park; and o Improving access to Central Middlesex Hospital, particularly with the associated increase in frequency between the hospital and Park Royal Station.

 Support the addition of a bus shelter at the northbound bus stop on Twyford Abbey Road (opposite 100 Twyford Abbey Road) but have the following suggestions: o shelter to be placed at the rear of the footway to ensure maximum pedestrian width on the path; o Ensure dropped kerbs are retained on Twyford Abbey Road to support cyclists access from the Grand Union Canal towpath to Twyford Abbey Road; and o Remove street clutter and pedestrian guard rails around new bus shelter

Angie Bray MP  Constituents have raised concerns that the proposed new route of the 224 bus would pose safety concerns, and that there is no clear case for the alteration.

 In particular, the West Twyford Residents Association is concerned that the removal of the width restriction measure would pose a safety risk to pupils and families in the area. The bus gate has the added effect of calming traffic and discouraging larger vehicles using the route. Residents are concerned that the removal of the bus gate would allow this activity to occur unhindered.

 Would be grateful if the views of the local residents, the West Twyford Residents Association and the local councillors could be taken into account when making the final decision on this re-routing.

West Twyford Primary School The responses from the Head Teacher are summarised here. We also received responses from other representatives of the school which have been included in the responses from members of the public

 I am opposed to the proposal, despite seeing the attraction of a more joined up bus route.

 I understand that with increasing numbers of local residents, expansion of the school etc, there is a need for improved public transport infrastructure. However, Twyford Abbey Road is only relatively safe because of the width restrictor gate that is currently in place outside the school.

 Even with the width restriction in place several lorries a day have to reverse out when they get to the gate. They often try to manually open the gate. I believe that if this proposal goes ahead they and many others will simply use the bus lane. This would cause considerable danger to our children and their families. This idea comes at the same time as LB Ealing announcing that they are cutting our traffic patrol officer provision. 7

 If the gate is removed and we rely purely on CCTV, our community will be subjected to an enormously increased risk of being injured as they attempt to cross the road. Traffic volume will increase enormously, as will the speed at which they travel. Vehicles travelling down Twyford Abbey Road rarely adhere to the 20mph speed limit. Some vehicles even ignore the pedestrian crossing. CCTV would only identify who it was that ran a child over, it would not prevent it from happening.

 At the very least, if the bus route is to be re-routed, there should be a remotely operated gate for bus drivers to use, and two pelican crossings installed.

 I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal which will cause an unacceptable level of risk to my families as they endeavour to cross an increasingly busy road with pushchairs and young children.

 I understand that we need to improve the access to this area but this is not the way. Could the link road from Twyford Abbey Road to the A40 (which is currently one way) not be utilised in a more creative way?

 There is very strong feeling about this in the local area because we can all see how potentially disastrous the removal of the width restrictor gate will be. I doubt if anyone is against improving the bus route per se.

 We would also not want a bus stop right outside the school – partly because of congestion and cars overtaking along with our families trying to cross but also because people waiting at bus stops would be potentially staring in at the children in the playground. Also please consider carefully whether bus stop is too near the width restrictor because cars will overtake the waiting bus and this could again cause hazards.

West Twyford Residents' Association (WTRA) The response from the Chairman of the WTRA is summarised below - we also received responses from other members of the residents association which have been included in the responses from members of the public.

Strongly opposed to these proposals for the following reasons:

 Several 'Road Traffic Surveys' were carried out with Ealing Council which led to the introduction of various road calming measures for the area, including a 20mph zone. These traffic calming measures included the key feature of a width restriction outside the West Twyford Primary School.

 The removal of the bus gate (width restriction) outside the school would pose safety issues for the primary age pupils. The school will increase to twice its capacity over the next 18 months. Pupil, parent and resident safety is of paramount importance as there have been serious incidents in the past on this road.

 Twyford Abbey Road has for many years been used as a 'rat-run' especially for commercial vehicles who continue to ignore the advised speed limits.. The width restriction at least slows the traffic and acts as a barrier to larger vehicles.

 Bodiam Way has no functioning CCTV despite a firm undertaking that the road would be monitored at all times. We fear the same situation would apply to any CCTV monitoring of any open gate outside the school.

 Large lorries frequently attempt to use Twyford Abbey Road as a short cut to the factories and other commercial premises. With an open gate they would simply pass though unhindered. Most are large foreign lorries and so would escape any penalty notice should any be issued.

 We would prefer to see an increase in the number of 226 buses which runs via Twyford Abbey Road, Bodiam Way, Lakeside Drive, and Coronation Road to Central Middlesex Hospital in both directions. The proposed 224 simply duplicates this route with the downside of removing the width restriction on Twyford Abbey Road.

 Would also like to see the introduction of a Hail and Ride' service for route 226 between Bodium Way and the Gyratory System (NCR).

Heather Park Neighbourhood watch  Would like route 224 to serve Stonebridge Station in both directions.

Councillor Nigel Sumner, Hangar Hill Ward  There is already a high volume of traffic using Twyford Abbey Road - neither Brent Council nor First Central have made any concessions to Ealing Residents.

 Large vehicles with foreign plates will use the bus gate and may get stuck under the Piccadilly Bridge.

 There is a primary school and zebra crossing at the bus gate. At the present time vehicles have to slow to manoeuvre the width restriction; traffic still speeds along Twyford Abbey Road closer to 30mph rather than the planned 20mph.

 We support the Residents Association - we do not want the bus gate open or a change to the 224 Bus Route.

Councillor Joy Morrissey, Hangar Hill Ward  Does not support the proposed changes to route 224

Councillor Gregory Stafford, Hangar Hill Ward  There is already a high volume of traffic using Twyford Abbey Road - neither Brent Council nor First Central have made any concessions to Ealing Residents.

 Large vehicles with foreign plates will use the bus gate and may get stuck under the Piccadilly Bridge.

 We support the Residents Association - we do not want the bus gate open or a change to the 224 Bus Route.

The London Borough of Ealing were also consulted but did not provide a formal response. However, they have been involved throughout the progression of these proposals and are supportive. To allow implementation, they have indicated that they are happy to install and operate CCTV enforcement, progress any outstanding infrastructure work (such as stop installation), and open the bus gate. They have also agreed to carry out traffic surveys on Twyford Abbey Road both before and after implementation, to allow the impact of the proposals to be monitored.

Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter

Email to Oyster Card holders We sent an email to registered oyster card holders who have specified they use route 224. The email was issued to 5,660 people on 19 November 2014 and provided a link to our consultation page.

Appendix B – Letter distribution area

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members Caroline Pidgeon AM Darren Johnson AM Gareth Bacon AM Jenny Jones AM Murad Qureshi AM Nicky Gavron AM Navin Shah AM Andrew Boff AM Victoria Borwick AM Tom Copley AM Stephen Knight AM Fiona Twycross AM Onkar Sahota AM Sarah Teather MP Brent Central Angie Bray MP Ealing Central and Acton Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi Stonebridge Ward Cllr Sabina Khan Stonebridge Ward Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala Stonebridge Ward Cllr Kate Crawford East Acton ward 15

Cllr Kieron Gavan East Acton ward Cllr Hitesh Taylor East Acton ward Cllr Joy Morissey Hanger Hill ward Cllr Gregory Stafford Hanger Hill ward Cllr Nigel Sumner Hanger Hill ward

Local Authorities London Borough of Brent London Borough of Ealing

Police & Health Authorities Metropolitan Police Brent Safer Transport Team Ealing Safer Transport Team Care Commissioning Group (CCG) London Ambulance Service

Transport Groups AA Green Flag Group Association of British Drivers Motorcycle Action Group Association of Car Fleet Operators Motorcycle Industry Association British Motorcyclists Federation Road Haulage Association Freight Transport Association

Local Interest Groups Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Group West London Alliance North West London Chamber of West Twyford Primary School Commerce Park Royal Partnership West Twyford Residents' Association

Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) London Older People's Strategy Group Age Concern London MIND Age UK National Children's Bureau Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance National Grid BT RADAR London Access Forum Campaign for Better Transport RNIB Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Royal Mail London Fire and Emergency Planning CTC, The national cycling charity Authority Disability Alliance Sense Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Sixty Plus Committee EDF Energy Stroke Association Greater London Forum for the Elderly Sustrans Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Thames Water Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit The British Dyslexia Association Living Streets London Cycling Campaign