Proposed changes to buses in West, South-East and North-East London for the opening of the Elizabeth line
Consultation Report August 2018
Contents
Executive summary ...... 3 1. About the proposals ...... 9 1.1 Introduction ...... 9 1.2 Purpose ...... 9 1.3 Detailed description ...... 9 2.1 Purpose ...... 11 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 11 2.4 Who we consulted ...... 11 2.5 Dates and duration ...... 11 2.6 What we asked ...... 11 2.7 Methods of responding ...... 12 2.8 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 12 2.9 Ensuring the consultation was accessible to all ...... 12 3. About the respondents ...... 14 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 14 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 14 3.3 Methods of responding ...... 14 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 15 4.1 Summary of responses to West London proposals ...... 15 4.2 Summary of responses to South East London proposals ...... 34 4.3 Summary of responses to North East London proposals ...... 45 4.4 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 54 4.5 Comments on the consultation ...... 73 5. Next steps ...... 74 Appendix A: Consultation materials ...... 79 Appendix B: List of stakeholders consulted ...... 83 Appendix C: Consultation questions...... 99
2 Executive summary
We have reviewed bus services serving West, South East and North East London, to look at how bus demand and travel habits in these areas would be impacted by the introduction of the Elizabeth line. A set of proposals were identified that reorganised bus services in these areas. Our consultation on these proposals was held between 3 July 2017 and 17 September 2017. We received 2706 responses in total, 2664 were from members of the public and 42 were from stakeholders. The tables below shows the level of support and opposition for each route proposal as a proportion of those who responded to each of the questions:
West London 20 per cent support or strongly support Changes to routes 95 and E5 1044 responses 4 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 40 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 112 1049 responses 5 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 33 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 140 1072 responses 13 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 40 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route X140 1075 responses 9 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 33 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route N140 1055 responses 10 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 40 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route 278 1065 responses 5 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 33 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 266/N266 1067 responses 16 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 36 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route 218 * 1057 responses 10 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 31 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route 306 1039 responses 9 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 40 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route 218 * 1041 responses 10 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 16 per cent support or strongly support Withdraw route 223 1044 responses 14 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 24 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 427 1039 responses 25 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 27 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 440 1028 responses 12 per cent oppose or strongly oppose
3 26 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route H32 987 responses 2 per cent oppose or strongly oppose * Due to an administrative error, there were two questions which asked respondents what they thought of our proposals for route 218
South East London 32 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 161 920 responses 12 per cent oppose or strongly oppose
Changes to routes 178, 244 and 62 per cent support or strongly support 933 responses 291 9 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 34 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 180 927 responses 26 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 45 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 472 906 responses 9 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 63 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route 301 907 responses 4 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 34 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 469 900 responses 9 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 30 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route B11 897 responses 10 per cent oppose or strongly oppose
North East London Changes to route 104 and 41 per cent support or strongly support 396 responses introduction of route 304 11 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 31 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 300 400 responses 14 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 26 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 241 390 responses 15 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 41 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 330 392 responses 8 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 33 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 474 397 responses 16 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 35 per cent support or strongly support Introduction of route 497 401 responses 2 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 39 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 115 399 responses 13 per cent oppose or strongly oppose 75 per cent support option 1 Route 115 option 1 or 2 256 responses 25 per cent support option 2 16 per cent support or strongly support Changes to route 25 439 responses 44 per cent oppose or strongly oppose
4
This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation.
Next steps After considering the consultation responses, as well as bus demand data, budgetary considerations and other transport information for these routes, we plan to proceed as set out below.Changes will take place in line with the phased opening of the Elizabeth line or in response to wider bus network changes and subject to any necessary changes to highway infrastructure being made by the relevant highway authorities. More details on our next steps can be found in section 5.
West London Acton routes Below is a summary of the changes to services in the Acton area:
• We will be changing the routeing of route 266 as consulted on. However, frequency will be reduced to every 10 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times, every 12 minutes during Sunday shopping hours and every 15 minutes during all evenings. The night service, renumbered as route N266, will continue to operate between Brent Cross and Hammersmith at night with a bus every 30 minutes • We will be introducing changes to the routeing and frequency of route 391 as consulted on • New route 218 will be introduced as consulted on. However, it will run every 12 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times rather than every 10 minutes and every 20 minutes during Sundays and evenings rather than every 15 minutes • New route 306 will operate between Acton Vale and Sand’s End (Fulham) via Askew Road, Hammersmith and Fulham Broadway using double-deck buses. It will run every 12 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times. However, it will run every 20 minutes during Sundays and evenings rather than every 15 minutes
Between Acton Vale and Hammersmith, new routes 218 and 306 would be timed to provide a bus every 6 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times and every 10 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. Frequencies will be kept under review once the new routes have started running.
In addition, we will be making the changes consulted on to route 440 in the Acton and Park Royal areas. However, we will not be going ahead with the changes to the 440 in the Chiswick area at this time and have consulted separately on revised proposals to route 440 in Chiswick. Link: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/.
5 Ealing routes Below is a summary of the changes for the Ealing area:
• We will not be reducing the frequency of route E1 at this time • We will be reducing frequency on route E3 as consulted on • Route E10 will be converted to larger 60 capacity single deck buses as consulted on, but it will not be increased in frequency at this time. Frequency will be kept under review once the full Elizabeth line service has started in West London
We will not going ahead with the extension of route 112 between Ealing Broadway and Osterley, Tesco via South Ealing. We will be consulting separately on revised proposals on a new service for this corridor in due course.
Southall routes Below is a summary of the changes for the Southall area:
• We will be introducing changes to the routeing and frequency of route 427 as consulted on • We will be delaying changes to routes 95, E5 and H32 until new roads are available at the Southall Waterside (Gasworks) site • We will not be going ahead with the frequency increase of route 120
Hayes & Harlington, Heathrow Airport and West Drayton routes Below is a summary of the changes for the Hayes & Harlington, Heathrow Airport and West Drayton areas:
• We will be introducing changes to the routeing and frequency of route 140 as consulted on. The night service, renumbered as route N140 will continue to run every 30 minutes with an enhanced every 12 minutes service during early mornings on all nights of the week • New limited stop route X140 will be introduced as consulted on • We will be going ahead with the changes to routeing and frequency of Route 223 as consulted on • New route 278 will be introduced. However, it would run every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times rather than every 12 minutes as this would be sufficient to meet demand. It would run every 20 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. • Route 697 would run with one less return journey as new route 278 would provide extra capacity between Ickenham and Hayes. • Route 698 would run with one less return journey as new route 278 would provide extra capacity between Ickenham and Hayes.
6 South East London We will go ahead with the changes as consulted on for routes 129, 161, 178, 291, 469, 472 and B11.
We will also be implementing the changes to route 180 and the introduction of route 301. However, following the consultation responses and further review, the changes to these routes will go ahead with the following alterations: • Route 180 will be run between Erith Quarry and North Greenwich, but will be rerouted between Charlton and North Greenwich via Bugsby’s Way instead of via Peartree Way
• Route 301 will be introduced between Bexleyheath and Woolwich. However it will use double deck buses and will run via Woolwich Road and New Road instead of via Knee Hill
We will not be converting route 244 to double deck operation at this time. We will keep demand under review and if required we will introduce double deck buses on this route at a later date.
North East London We will proceed with the changes as consulted on for routes 25, 300, 330 and 474 (The night service on route 25 would be retained between Ilford and Oxford Circus, renumbered as route N25).
With regard to other routes consulted on, we will be making the following changes: Route 104 – as consulted on, the route will be split into two overlapping routes numbered 104 and 304. However, route 304 will operate at a frequency of every 12 minutes, rather than every 10 minutes. New analysis of demand indicates this will be sufficient to meet demand while still providing a high frequency service. Route 241 – will be withdrawn from Hermit Road as consulted on and will terminate at Custom House station. The extension from Stratford City to Here East will not be introduced. Further analysis of demand between Stratford City and Here East suggests the 241 extension is not required for capacity purposes. Route 388 will continue to provide a high frequency link between Stratford City and Here East as will the shuttle bus operated by Here East. Route 115 – the proposed changes will not go ahead. Changes to the road are required to enable buses to operate along the new routeing. We have not received the necessary assurance that the highway authority is prepared to make these changes. Route 497 – it is currently expected to introduce the new service when the second stage of the Elizabeth line opens and when the Kings Park development is further progressed. Further consideration will be given to the frequency of the service and an announcement made nearer the time
7 Although not consulted upon, the consultation also referred to frequency increases on route 174 and double decking route 256. Both these schemes will be kept under review and demand on these routes will continue to be monitored.
8 1. About the proposals
1.1 Introduction We have reviewed bus services serving West, South East and North East London to support the opening of the Elizabeth line. This looked at how the introduction of the Elizabeth line will impact travel habits, the overall bus demand in these areas, as well as other factors such as new developments. A set of proposals were identified that reorganised bus services in these areas. The proposals involved a combination of changing where some routes terminate, rerouteing some routes, extending routes to maintain connections and introducing new routes. The introduction of the Hopper fare has allowed us to make changes to the bus network which would previously not have been as attractive, now that passengers using pay as you go can make as many bus journeys as they like within an hour of first touching in for the price of one fare.
This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation.
1.2 Purpose Our proposals are designed to streamline passenger services to reflect changing needs following the introduction of the Elizabeth line. The proposals help to ensure that our bus services best meet passenger demand while continuing to provide an affordable and reliable network.
London is growing, with an estimated 10 million people expected to live here by the early 2030s. Transport is an essential part of life in London and we’re investing so that as the city grows, everyone who lives, works or visits London has the transport they need.
The opening of the Elizabeth line will further transform how people move about in London. The line will provide a key east-west link across London and beyond. Many people in inner and outer London will use a bus to get to the new service. We need to ensure that people can access the stations by bus.
The Elizabeth line will mean bus passenger trips and demand will be different in the future as people make their way to different stations or use the train instead. We’ve looked at how buses might serve stations in West, South East and North East London.
We have taken account of the number of passengers using each bus route, journey times, and where people are traveling to and from. We have also considered the potential impact of new developments in the areas and the aspirations of our stakeholders including borough councils. Our proposals range in scale depending on the route to help us better match services to future demand, while ensuring our financial resources are being used in the best way possible
9 1.3 Detailed description We published detailed proposals on our website at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line/ There we provided an overview of the changes, along with maps showing the bus routes as they are now and how they would look if the proposals were implemented.
The route proposals are generally connected by area. Due to the scope of the proposals we presented the information in separate sections maintaining this grouped order, each with their own explanations and maps, as follows: • West London - Central Ealing routes 112, 427, E1 and E10 - Hayes, Heathrow and West Drayton routes 140, 223, 278, 697, 698, and X140 - Southall routes 95, 120, E5 & H32 (and 427) - Acton routes 218, 266, 306, 391 and 440
• South East London - Woolwich and Abbey Wood routes 129, 161, 178, 180, 244, 291, 301, 469, 472 and B11
• North East London - Royal Docks/Custom House routes 104, 241, 300, 304, 330 and 474 - Harold Wood Romford routes 497, (174 and 256) - Inner North East London routes 25 and 115
Our survey asked for levels of support or opposition for each section. We also invited comments on the overall proposals and individual sections.
The full consultation material will remain available at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line/
10 2. About the consultation
2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:
• To give stakeholders and the public easy to understand information about the proposals and allow them to respond
• To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s To understand any issues that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware
• To understand concerns and objections
• To allow respondents to make suggestions
2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:
• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation
• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and other factors and proceed with a revised scheme
• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Section 5.
2.4 Who we consulted The public consultation intended to seek the views of local residents and current users along the routes involved. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, London Assembly members, ward councillors, local community and residents groups, schools and churches. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix B: List of stakeholders consulted.
2.5 Dates and duration The consultation took place for a period of 11 weeks from 3 July 2017 until 17 September 2017. This was longer than our standard six weeks to allow more time for responses because of the summer holiday period.
2.6 What we asked We asked specific questions about the proposals on a route by route basis. We also asked for comments in general and for the respondents views on the quality of our consultation.
11 A copy of these questions can be found in Appendix C: Consultation Questions.
2.7 Methods of responding People were invited to respond to our consultation by completion of an online survey, by email, by telephone or in writing via the use of our Freepost address. 2.8 Consultation materials and publicity We publicised the consultation online and at bus stops (where space permitted), along key routes that serve roads common with other routes being consulted on. We also emailed customers and relevant stakeholders (see sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4), and a press release was issued.
2.8.1 Website We created a dedicated web page to host the consultation on our website at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line/
2.8.3 Emails to public We sent 185,634 emails to registered Oyster card users whose travel patterns indicated they travel on any of the bus routes in question.
2.8.4 Emails to stakeholders We sent 1129 emails to stakeholders, including the affected Councils, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, London Assembly members, ward councillors and local community groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix B: List of stakeholders consulted.
2.8.5 On-site advertising Notices publicising the consultation were placed at bus stops along the routes being consulted on where space was available. Details of the consultation were also distributed to key libraries and other known busy contact points.
2.8.6 Digital advertising The proposals took prime place as the ‘featured consultation’ on our home page during the consultation period, to enable participant’s easy access to our information and our survey.
2.9 Ensuring the consultation was accessible to all The consultation took place for a period of 11 weeks to allow more time for responses because of the summer holiday period.
We took steps to ensure that groups in the community, such as elderly, disabled or faith organisations were made aware of the proposals, their potential impacts and how to respond to the consultation. Measures taken included:
12 • Identifying and emailing relevant stakeholders such as British Dyslexia Association, Age UK London, Guide Dogs, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Action on Hearing Loss, as well as local community groups, churches, and others inviting them to respond to the consultation (a full list of stakeholders consulted can be found in Appendix B)
• Ensuring that the materials were written in plain English, and available on request in different formats
• Considering how best to reach our target audiences and tailoring the way of communicating with them. For example, by preparing hard copies of our online material for those not able to access our website, and distributing it to local libraries etc.
2.10 Analysis of consultation responses Responses were reviewed by our in-house Consultation Analysts. The online questionaire contained 31 “open” questions about the proposals; respondents could provide comments on the proposals for specific routes, as well as on the scheme overall. There was also a further open question where respondents could comment on the quality of the consultation.
A draft coding framework was developed for responses to these questions, which was finalised following review by an independent internal expert, allowing the responses to be reviewed and coded into themes. Responses received by letter or email were coded using the same framework. There were 31 duplicate responses which were merged and deleted.
13 3. About the respondents
3.1 Number of respondents Respondents Total % Public responses 2664 99% Stakeholder responses 42 1% Total 2706 100%
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation 1444 respondents out 2706 answered this question. The following table breaks down how those who answered heard about the consultation:
How respondents heard Total % Email 713 49% Letter 1 0% Social media 228 16% TfL website 102 7% In the press 63 4% Other 337 24% Total 1444 100%
3.3 Methods of responding Methods of responding Total % Website 2532 96% Letter/email 174 4% Total 2706 100%
14 4. Summary of all consultation responses
We received 2706 responses to the consultation. 2664 were from members of the public and 42 were from stakeholders. A summary of the responses is set out in sections 4.1 to 4.3. The stakeholder responses are shown section 4.4.
4.1 Summary of responses to West London proposals
4.1.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 We asked respondents how often they used these bus routes
Daily/nightly 2-3 times a Once a 1-2 times Rarely Never Total week week a month responses Route 95 29 3% 46 5% 25 3% 63 7% 201 23% 495 58% 859 100% 112 22 3% 21 2% 24 3% 69 8% 205 24% 513 60% 854 100% 120 35 4% 20 2% 19 2% 59 7% 146 18% 542 66% 821 100% 140 133 15% 76 8% 42 5% 105 12% 155 17% 400 44% 911 100% 222 33 4% 27 3% 18 2% 53 6% 154 18% 549 66% 834 100% 223 30 3% 45 5% 14 2% 30 3% 117 14% 622 72% 858 100% 266 116 13% 120 13% 37 4% 83 9% 166 18% 401 43% 923 100% 427 127 14% 123 14% 58 6% 105 12% 146 16% 349 38% 908 100% 440 48 6% 54 7% 34 4% 69 9% 128 16% 460 58% 793 100% 697 4 1% 6 1% 0 0% 12 2% 66 8% 711 89% 799 100% 698 5 1% 4 1% 0 0% 7 1% 64 8% 713 90% 793 100% E1 62 7% 31 4% 17 2% 59 7% 118 14% 548 66% 835 100% E3 103 11% 103 11% 72 8% 97 10% 154 17% 395 43% 924 100% E5 25 3% 15 2% 15 2% 32 4% 125 16% 591 74% 803 100% E10 29 4% 32 4% 16 2% 40 5% 122 15% 572 71% 811 100% H32 17 2% 18 2% 18 2% 33 4% 115 14% 610 75% 811 100% H98 49 6% 38 5% 36 4% 53 6% 119 14% 544 65% 839 100%
15 4.1.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 We asked respondents what they thought of our proposals to change the route of both the 95 and E5 in the Dormers Wells area, and to extend the 95 to the new Southall Waterside High Street. There were 1044 responses to this question.
Q2 What do you think of our proposals for routes 95 and E5? 600
500
400
300
200
100
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 105 108 517 13 29 272 1044 % 10 10 50 1 3 26 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive 95/E5: Agree with proposal 11 95: Partially agree 4 95: Happy with both routes 3 Negative 95/E5: Oppose to changes 8 95: Changes be of a inconvenience to users 6 95/E5: Concern about reliability 4 E5 and 95: Will effect children and elderly people 3 Beaconsfield Road in Southall is unsuitable for buses 2 95: Sceptical about proposal 2 Suggestions 95/E5: Need larger (double decker) capacity buses 22 95/E5: Frequency needs to be increased 8 95: bus should stay on its route though Dormers Wells 2 95: Extend towards Hayes town centre. 2 Other 95: Not affected/do not use service/unclear comment 10
16 4.1.3 Summary of responses to Question 3 We asked respondents what they thought of our proposals to extend route 112 to Osterley Tesco via South Ealing, creating many new connections including between Gillette Corner and the Elizabeth line at Ealing Broadway station. There were 1049 responses to this question.
Q3 What do you think of our proposals for route 112? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 200 218 377 25 31 198 1049 % 19 21 36 2 3 19 100
The main issues respondents raised in response to these proposals were:
Positive Agree with proposals for route 112 59 112: Will improve connections and/or journey times in the area 6 112: This will help relieve pressure on route 65 3 112: will benefit Tesco customers, Sky TV and Glaxo Smith Kline employees 3 112: A very good idea but the problems of overcrowding on the existing 65 route do not disperse until after the A4 2 Negative 112: Concern that extending the route will affect reliability 38 112: Strongly oppose to the proposal 14 112: Frequency of buses needs to improve 10 112: Journeys will be much longer 9 112: Oppose to re-routing the route into Madeley road as its not suitable for buses 7 112: Don’t use it/not affected 3 112: Happy with current route 3 Suggestion 112: Route should use double deckers 19 112: Should serve Brentford High Street/Kew Bridge Road 4 Extend route E9 instead 4 112: Would be nice if the route could be extended to Hounslow 4 112: Could the E1 be extended through South Ealing to Osterley instead 3
17 112: Consider extending further to the West Middlesex Hospital just south of the proposed Tesco proposal 3 Provide bus service between Ealing Broadway and Osterley Tesco 2
4.1.4 Summary of responses to Questions 4 - 7 We asked respondents what they thought of our proposals to restructure route 140, introduce limited stop route X140 and new route 278.
Question 4 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to alter route 140 to run between Harrow and Hayes & Harlington. There were 1067 responses to this question.
Q4 What do you think of our proposals for route 140? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 201 148 401 48 95 179 1072 % 19 14 37 4 9 17 100
The main issues raised in response to question 4 were:
Positive 140: Agree/Strongly agree 57 140: Means more efficient service 5 140: Great service for night and day connection to Heathrow 4 X140: Generally supportive 4 140: The proposed amendments would significantly reduce overcrowding 4 140: Will add better connections 2 X140: Would cut journey times 2 Negative 140: Keep route 140 as it is 35 140: Against proposal 38 Having to change buses will be inconvenient, especially for those with heavy luggage and/or disabilities. 27
18 140: This proposal will also reduce bus frequency 13 140: Improve capacity and frequency instead 10 140: Increase in journey times 9 X140: Not convinced the new route will be faster 7 140: Route is already underserved/unreliable 3 140: Don’t use it not affected 3 140: Not every one takes trains 2 Suggestion 140: Both 140 and X140 routes should run concurrently using the current 140 route 7 140: Needs to be extended 4 140: The X140 should run to Harrow Weald/Stanmore 4 140: Route should terminate at Hayes and Harlington/ start at Harrow Weald 2 140: Service needs improving 2 Other Unclear message 7 Question 5 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to introduce new limited stop route X140 between Harrow bus station and Heathrow Airport. 1075 people answered this question.
Q5 What do you think of our proposals for route X140? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 262 176 384 27 61 165 1075 % 24 16 36 3 6 15 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive 140: Agree/Strongly agree 81 140: Will allow quick journeys to Heathrow/other destinations 11 X140: Would cut journey times 7 Have the X140 express but keep the 140 as it is now 7
19 140: Would cut journey times 6 140: An express route to Heathrow is long overdue. 6 X140: Conditional support: only if frequency levels are maintained 2 Negative 140: Against the proposal 32 140: Route should be left alone 9 140: Will great delays and congestion 7 140: Don’t use the service / Doesn't provide any additional convenience 5 X140: Oppose to proposal 4 140: Risk of over crowding with new route 3 140/X140: Will be more costly to travel 2 Suggestion 140: Extend the X140 route to Harrow Weald bus garage 16 X140/140: Frequency should be increased 10 X140: Give a new number. The X will be difficult for older people to see and they will get on the bus instead of a 140 3 X140: Look at possibility of starting X140 route at Harrow & Wealdstone station so passengers do not need to change buses at Harrow-on-the-Hill 3 X140: Should serve Stanmore 2 X140: Changes to the route and stops 2 X140: should be extended to Terminal 5 2 140: Extend the service to Northwick Park Hospital. 2 140: Extend the X140 and either of the other two 140s to Heathrow Terminal 5 via Longford village 2 140: There should be more stops along the routes/ Hayes and Harlington 2 Other Unclear response 3 140: Exactly what stops will be served 2 X140: How often the route will run 2
20 Question 6 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to introduce route N140 between Harrow and Heathrow Airport, as the restructured 140 would not be a 24 hour service. There were 1055 responses to this question.
Q6 What do you think of our proposals to introduce new route N140? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 202 147 431 37 60 178 1055 % 19 14 41 4 6 17 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive 140: Agree with proposal 37 140: Conditional: As long as there is no extend time lag in between when the 140 stops and N140 begins and vice versa 1 N140: Would cut journey times 1 140: Continuing night service is a good thing 1 Negative 140: Leave the route alone 24 140: Opposed to proposal 18 140: Leave current 140 as it is and introduce the X140 along side the service 4 140: Sceptical about proposal 4 140: Doesn't provide any additional convenience 3 Will cost more /increase Journey times 2 140: Fragmented services will complicate things 2 No Connection between Heathrow/Uxbridge/ No night bus service 2 Suggestion 140: The 140 should just be a 24 hr bus 7 140: Increase frequency of the N140/140 6 140: Extend the N140 Harrow to Edgware and Stanmore Station 3 140: Keep entire Heathrow-Harrow night route 3 140: More night buses in this area are necessary 3 N140: Extend route with limited bus stops to Ruislip Manor Station 2 Other 140: Don’t use it 2
21 Question 7 asked what respondents thought of our proposal introduce new route 278 between Heathrow Airport and Ruislip station, serving Hayes & Harlington. 1065 people answered this question.
Q7 What do you think of our proposals to introduce new route 278? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 274 152 414 18 32 175 1065 % 26 14 39 2 3 16 100
The main issues raised to these proposals by respondents were:
Positive 140: Agree with proposal 53 140: Creates a lot of good links 50 278: Supportive proposal 50 140: Long overdue 11 278: Will provide people in Hillingdon & Long Lane a new bus route providing many new links 5 278: Will decrease congestion 2 Negative 140/278: Oppose to proposal 8 140: Proposed changes will make things less convenient 6 278: Sceptical about the proposal 4 278/X140: Not needed/Leave it as it is 4 Suggestion 278: It should probably connect to the airport but go to Terminal 5 instead so that it appears to be a distinctive bus route. 4 278: Route should be double decked 3 278: Route should be extended to north of Ruislip rather than terminating at Ruislip Station 3 140: Needs to cover more areas 2 140: Needs to be a 24 hour service. 2 140: Long Lane through to Ickenham and Hillingdon needs a direct bus service. 2
22 It would serve me better to turn on to Uxbridge Road at the Coldharbour Lane Junction instead of travelling down Church Road 2 Other 278/140: Don’t use it 3 Unclear response/No significant comment 3
4.1.5 Summary of responses to Questions 8 - 11 We asked respondents what they thought of our proposals to restructure route 266 and introduce new routes 218 and 306.
Question 8 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to alter route 266 to run between Acton Town Hall and Brent Cross Shopping Centre, as new route 218 would provide connections to Hammersmith.There were 1067 responses to this question.
Q8 What do you think of our proposals for route 266/N266? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 145 202 375 56 117 172 1067 % 14 19 35 5 11 16 100
Respondents raised the following issues to question 8:
Positive 218/266: Generally/Strongly positive 65 266: Conditional: support this only if there is the introduction of the route 218 5 218: Conditional: support this if Acton and Hammersmith are connected 2 266: Conditional: As long as it is connected with Hammersmith. I support it. 2 Negative 218/266: Against proposal 65 218/266/N266: Leave route alone 24 266: Will increase costs/Journey time 22 266: Concern about broken journeys and inconvenience 19 266: concern about reliability and crowding 10
23 218: Bus frequency concerns 3 266/N266: Loss of direct connection between Horn lane & Hammersmith 3 266: Lack of safety at night 2 Suggestion 218: Route needs to have a double decker bus 8 Increase frequency 6 218: 218 should run to Central Middlesex Hospital./and or Willesden Bus garage or Hammersmith 4 266: 266 could stop/start from The Vale 5 24hr service would be good. 3 266: Couldn't we have new routes without existing routes being chopped or changed? 2 Reliable & frequent service from Hammersmith to Acton (Askew Road) required 2 266: Connection between Acton central and Hammersmith should be provided 2 Make the 266 run to Bromyard Avenue instead 2 Other Never use/Sceptical about the proposal 5
Question 9 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to introduce new route 218 to run between Hammersmith and North Acton. 1057 people answered this question.
Q9 What do you think of our proposals for new route 218? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 191 193 389 30 73 181 1057 % 18 18 37 3 7 17 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive 218/266: Positive: Generally/Partially/ Strongly agree with the proposals 42 266: Would improve reliability 6
24 218/266: Conditional: Support but increase frequency and/or extend North Acton via either 440 or 266 to Park Royal 4 266: As long as it did improve the service and reliability. 2 Negative 218/266: Oppose 25 266/218: keep it as it is/Not needed 18 Changing buses inconvenient/ leads to longer journey 12 266:Will increase congestion/overcrowding/pollution 8 218: Will be a good idea to run it alongside 5 218: The route should go through to Horn Lane 5 218: Will increase cost 2 Suggestion Alternative route/ destination proposed 25 Need a double decker running on the route 18 266: Increase frequency 8 266: 266 should stay at Hammersmith to Brent Cross 3 266: Make the route 216/266 24 hour services 2 Further Information Will 306 and 218 go to Askew road? 2 Will the service be 24 hrs 2 Other Other: Not sure and/or not affected and/or neither support or oppose 9 218: Unclear comment 3
Question 10 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to introduce new route 306 between Fulham Sand’s End and Acton Vale, Bromyard Avenue. 1039 people answered this question.
Q10 What do you think of our proposals for route 306? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 167 157 425 32 59 199 1039 % 16 15 41 3 6 19 100
25 Due to an administrative error, question 11 also asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to introduce new route 218 between North Acton station and Hammersmith. 1041 people answered this question.
Q11 What do you think of our proposals for route 218? 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 189 231 348 38 64 171 1041 % 18 22 33 4 6 16 100
The main issues raised to this question were:
Positive 218: Supportive of changes/Good idea 34 218: Conditional: As Long as it serves Askew road, meets capacity and route 218 route stops at Bromyard Avenue 3 218: It would be good if the 10 minute schedule is adhered to 2 218: New connections always help the local area 2 Negative 218: Single decker capacity would not be adequate 50 218: Not needed/Oppose to proposal 18 218: Keep the 266/440 as it is 13 218: Broken links 8 218: Would increase traffic/expense 4 Suggestion 218: Increase frequency 18 218: Horne lane needs to be served with another bus connecting it with high street bus stations beyond Bromyard Ave. specially in the morning time 11 218: I would like this route to go to Acton Mainline Station. 5 218: Extend route 218 to Willesden Junction 2 218: Needs to be linked to Park Royal ASDA and hospital 2 218: Should be extended from North Acton to Asda supermarket / Central Middlesex Hospital. 2 218: West Acton needs more services 2
26 Other Not sure/not used 6 306: terminating the route at Acton Vale misses out an important town centre 2 Out of consultation scope 2
4.1.6 Summary of responses to Question 12 Question 12 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to withdraw route 223 between Harrow Bus station and Northwick Park Hospital, as there is excess capacity on this corridor and passengers can change to routes 114, 182, 183, 186, 483, H9/H10, H14 or H18/H19 to continue their journey. 1041 people answered this question.
Q12 What do you think of our proposal to withdraw route 223? 550
450
350
250
150
50
-50 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 70 95 508 46 105 220 1044 % 7 9 49 4 10 21 100
The following issues were raised by respondents about the proposed changes to route 223:
Positive 223: Partially/Strongly agree 18 223: Should improve reliability and will reduce traffic 5 223: As long as there is evidence for excess capacity 2 Negative 223: Will create inconvenience particularly for older or less mobile passengers 68 223: I oppose the proposal/leave it as it is 43 Negative: Changes will mean more making one/more connection to reach destination 9 223: Don't agree with route ending at Northwick Park hospital 6 223: New proposal will add additional travelling time 5
27 223: Will add cost 4 223: Shame that there isn’t a strong linkage to Hounslow/Hanworth TW13. 2 Suggestion 223: Should serve Northwick Park Hospital. 8 Extend route 395 from Harrow Bus Station to Northwick Park Hospital 3 223: Extend to Harrow Leisure Centre 2 Concern 223: Concerns with reliability 3 Preston Road does not have bus coverage 3 Concern that this route is being shortened just to allow stand space for the X140 3 Concern about capacity 2 Other 223: Don’t use it 3
4.1.7 Summary of responses to Question 13 Question 13 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to reroute route 427 to Southall, Elizabeth line station and reduce the frequency from every 8 minutes to every 10 minutes. 1039 people answered this question.
Q13 What do you think of our proposals for route 427? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 99 145 367 90 163 175 1039 % 10 14 35 9 16 17 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Further Information 427: Can we wait until the train is actually running so that we can see what the impact is? 5 Positive 427: Support proposal 30 427: Proposal will help relieve congestion 4 427: Supportive but frequency should remain the same. 2
28 Negative 427: Leave it as it is/oppose to proposal 96 427: Changing the frequency will have a negative affect on the route 43 427: Will increase costs/travelling and over crowding 32 427: Doesn't provide any additional support or convenience for me 7 427: Route would be to short and route 207 and 607 would not be able to cope with the demand for passengers. 11 427: The Elizabeth line service is not an adequate substitute for this, especially Eastbound towards Shepherds Bush, since it does not serve the Uxbridge Road area 10 427: Route towards Southall should be evaluated after 1 year after 2 427: Withdrawal of 427 from South Road, Southall will limit direct access to Ealing Hospital 2 Suggestion 427: I would let the 427 run onto from Southall to Ealing Hospital 8 427: Route to Acton mainline station via Acton Central Station 3 427: Better service needed 3 427: Extend route to Hanwell through Church Road, Uxbridge Road and Southall 3 427: extending the 207 route to include uxbridge instead of it terminating at Hayes By Pass. Or else consider terminating the 207 at Merrick Road 2 427: Should be retained on the Uxbridge Road as far as Ealing. 2 Concern 207/427: Frequency concerns 7 427: As long as that route is covered, passengers will not be inconvenienced. 2 427: Reduced flexibility if/ when rail closures/problems/strikes occur 2 427: Sceptical about proposal 2 Other Not sure/not affected 6
29 4.1.8 Summary of responses to Question 14 Question 14 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to reroute route 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick High Road. 1028 people answered this question.
Q14 What do you think of our proposals for route 440? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 130 139 450 37 86 186 1028 % 13 14 44 4 8 18 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive 440: Strongly/supportive agree 45 Negative 440: Generally opposed/Leave it as is 55
440: Proposed route not inconvenient particularly for older and less mobile people 46 440: Will increase journey/traffic pollution and congestion 13
440: Changes will increase walking distance and travelling time 4 440: Lack of connections with Route 94 2 440: Seems to be an annoyance to cut off the route around the West Acton local area 2 Suggestion 440: Route should be more frequent 7
440: 440 should continue to Wembley to provide a link between Acton & Wembley 3 440: Better serving Acton Green for connections between the 94 and Acton Town station. 2 Other 440: Don’t use it 5 Under clear response 3
30 4.1.9 Summary of responses to Question 15 Question 15 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to extend the H32 to Hayes & Harlington station via the new developments at Southall Waterside. 987 people answered this question.
Q15 What do you think of our proposals for route H32? 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 126 132 487 7 11 224 987 % 13 13 49 1 1 23 100
The following table shows the main issues raised in response to question 15:
Positive H32: Generally agree 26 H32: This will be a great addition 4 H32: Will provide better connections between Hayes and Hounslow 2 Negative H32: Opposed to the proposal 5 H32: Too busy as it is already 2 H32: breaks links 4 Suggestion H32: Service should be 24/7 3 H32: Increase frequency 2 H32: Bus U4 needs rerouting to Southall via Southall waterside and extend the 350 to Prologis Park 2 Concern Traffic and/or lateness 3 Other Unaffected 3
4.1.10 Summary of responses to Question 16 Question 16 asked respondents if they had any further comments or suggestions about our proposals for buses in West London. The main comments and suggestions are listed in the table below:
31 Positive Support changes 169 E3 frequency seems excessive and decrease will save costs 2 Supportive of bus from Ruislip to Heathrow 2 Negative Opposed to changes 122 Opposed generally to reduction in frequency 108 Changing buses inconvenient/ leads to longer journey 16 Please note not all customers wish to catch a train plus the additional fare to board a train over a bus should be considered 16 Opposed to the reduction in Mon-Fri peak Frequency on E1 8 Please keep horn lane in the link to Hammersmith and askew road. . 7 427 Don’t agree with axing the 427 without replacing capacity between Southall and Acton. 4 Poor consultation 4 Happy with current level of service 3 Leave it as it is 3 E10: Oppose to upgrading to larger buses 3 223: This route should not be cancelled 2 Extra fares and too many changes 2 Changes to route 391 will inconvenience residents of Sands End/Imperial Wharf 2 Concerned that non Elizabeth line users haven’t been well considered in the consultation 2 Reduction of service on route 427, will lead to poor connection to east of Uxbridge 2 Reservations as to how the changes will affect the general reliability of bus services 2 Concerned that the proposal will reduce the frequency of 391 2 Suggestion Should be more frequent 12 Increase bus services 12 Use double decker buses for increased capacity 9 There should be a formal review and feedback process akin to this one on the results of the changes 6 and 12 months post introduction 5 Do not reduce service frequency on route E3 4 306: should go as far as North Acton instead of Acton Vale 3 391: The Kew section to run on Kew Road instead of Sandycombe Road 3 140: route should be altered due to its importance. If anything, there should be more 140 buses running.. 2 140: current route works well, so introduce extra buses and special shuttle services to the airport 2 391 should be extended to White City 2 Capacity issue on route E6 between Greenford and Hayes. 2 Connections should be improved with Ealing with the extension of route 112 all the way to Hounslow 2 Request that new routes add to the existing network and not chop offed off or truncated 2
32 Improve on bus cleanliness 2 Long Lane through Ickenham and Hillingdon needs a direct bus service. 2 Provide more express services 2 Reconsider the proposals 2 Traffic situation around Southall train station has to be seriously reviewed as there is already too much congestion in the area 2 Further Information Further Info What route to use for Hammersmith/Kelmscot Gardens/Askew Road once changes are made on route 266 2 Further info would like to know who TfL are consulting on these changes 2 Further Infor You haven't asked for comments on the 391 4 Are buses going to run more frequently? 2 The frequencies for routes X140 and 223 has not been expressed 2 Please consider older people while making your proposals as they rely heavily on buses 2 Other Outside the consultation scope 84 Unclear response 6
33 4.2 Summary of responses to South East London proposals
4.2.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 We asked respondents how often they used these bus routes
Daily/nightly 2-3 times a Once a 1-2 times a Rarely Never Total week week month responses Route 129 40 6% 52 7% 25 3% 42 6% 134 19% 431 60% 724 100% 161 84 11% 93 12% 49 6% 99 13% 194 25% 246 32% 765 100% 178 45 6% 27 4% 19 3% 26 4% 177 25% 413 58% 707 100% 180 129 16% 122 15% 65 8% 114 14% 156 20% 211 26% 797 100% 244 129 17% 101 13% 27 3% 59 8% 137 18% 321 41% 774 100% 291 66 9% 45 6% 15 2% 50 7% 129 18% 419 58% 724 100% 469 65 9% 65 9% 35 5% 74 10% 155 21% 343 47% 737 100% 472 150 19% 94 12% 48 6% 92 12% 153 20% 246 31% 783 100% N472 31 4% 23 3% 23 3% 43 6% 123 18% 459 65% 702 100% B11 70 9% 74 10% 30 4% 60 8% 122 16% 392 52% 748 100%
4.2.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 Question 2 asked what respondents thought of our proposals to run route 161 via Wellington Street in Woolwich (towards North Greenwich only) instead of via Beresford Street. There were 920 responses to this question.
Q2 What do you think of our proposals for route 161? 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 124 176 383 53 53 131 920 % 13 19 42 6 6 14 100
34 The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive comments 161: Generally Supportive of proposed changes 15 Negative comments 161: Generally Opposed/Leave route as is 28 161: Poor connection in Woolwich area 8 161: Changes on will mean lack of connection between Greenwich/Woolwich 7 161: Changes/connections will have negative impact 4 161: Proposed changes will increase journey time 4 161: We need connection from Woolwich Arsenal Station towards Beresford St. 4 and Woolwich Church St 161: The changes will Inconvenience the elderly and disabled 3 Suggestions 161: Should be rerouted via/ terminated at alternative route/ destination 13 More frequent services 11 Needs easy access to DLR and Crossrail stations. 7 A fast-track service from Eltham to central Woolwich 5 New bus stops needed on new section of the route 4 Would prefer the bus to go to Vincent Road and Burrage Road before heading 4 towards North Greenwich. 161 should have a 24hr service 3 Maintain same amount of bus stops in the Woolwich Town Centre and John 3 Wilson Street
35 4.2.3 Summary of responses to Question 3 Question 3 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to convert routes 178, 244 and 291 from single deck to double deck buses. 933 people answered this question.
Q3 What do you think of our proposals for routes 178, 244, 291? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 395 190 192 39 49 68 933 % 42 20 21 4 5 7 100
Respondents raised the following issues in response to question 3:
Positive comments Generally Supportive 67 Supportive of double decker buses/increased capacity 37 Supportive of changes on route 244 18 291: Supportive 7 Changes will improve services in areas affected 3 Negative comments 244 & 291: Concerned that both routes are not adequate for double decker buses 86 244: Route is not suitable for double decker buses 43 Concerns with current capacity as its always full 18 Generally Opposed 17 244: Concerned about the impact the changes will have on local residents 13 291 Route 291 crowded during peak times (current route) 12 291: Route is not suitable for double decker buses 9 244: Overcrowded and long journeys (current route) 6 Sceptical about this proposal 4 244: Concerned this will increase air/ noise pollution. 4 Concerned route might be overcrowded at certain times 4 291 use larger single deckers instead 4 Other comments
36 Unclear comment 8 Further Information request Will the 291 bus route still run along garland road in Plumstead 2 How do you propose keeping the route clear further along Timbercroft? 2 Will the 178 still go through the estates of Kidbrooke? 1 Suggestions 244: Increase frequency, especially during rush hour 25 Review routes for potential coverage in Woolwich/Kidbrooke/Thamesmead/Abbey Wood/ Bexleyheath areas 24 178: Extend to Abbey Wood/Catford/ Plumstead 9 Run double decker service/especially during busy periods 6 244: Extend to Bexleyheath 6 Parking and traffic flow situation on Herbert road and Cantwell Road-Brent Road 5 needs to be reviewed Maintain route 178 frequency 4 291: Alternative routes/destination/termination point 4 291: Increase frequency on this route 3 244: Use hybrid buses to reduce noise pollution 3
4.2.4 Summary of responses to Question 4 Question 4 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to restructure route 180 to run between North Greenwich and Erith Quarry, instead of between Lewisham to Belvedere Industrial Area, with route 129 being extended to run from North Greenwich and Lewisham following the current 180 route. There were 927 responses to this question.
Q4 What do you think of our proposals for route 180? 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 173 142 279 79 159 95 927 % 19 15 30 9 17 10 100
37 The following table shows the main issues raised in response to the proposals for routes 129 and 180:
Positive comments Generally Positive 41 Changes/connections will have positive impact 8 Improved service 3 Long overdue 3 Negative comments Generally Opposed 71 Changes/connections will have negative impact 48 Leave route 180 alone 24 Opposed to changes as it will require interchanging to reach destination/broken 24 links 180: reduced frequency/Increased journey time concerns 19 180: Will cause Inconvenience (eg. to vulnerable or less mobile passengers) 13 The Elizabeth line will be far more expensive to travel 5 Concerns Lack of connection between Greenwich/East Greenwich to Charlton/Woolwich/ 41 Belvedere areas Concerned about route 177 will struggle between Woolwich & Greenwich 21 Concerned about poor connection to Lewisham 16 Concerned that changes/connections will have a negative impact in areas 6 concerned Concerned about overcrowding on route 180 when there are problems with trains 6 from Abbey Wood to Lewisham Further Information requests 177: Will services be increased on this line? 4 Suggestions 129: Increase/maintain bus frequency 18 180: Extend route to Erith 9 180: Some buses should go to North Greenwich & some to Lewisham via 8 Vanbrugh Hill & Blackwall Lane Unclear comment 7 129: Extend the route 4 129: Route to Woolwich to maintain a direct connection between Woolwich, 4 Greenwich and Lewisham 180: Route should be more frequent on Sundays and bank holidays 4 129: Extend to from Lewisham to Catford/ Bromley/ Camberwell/ Peckham/ New 3 Cross for better links 180: Improve capacity i.e. double decker buses 3
38 4.2.5 Summary of responses to Question 5 Question 5 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to reduce the frequency of route 472 and re-route buses along Western Way instead of Nathan Way, no longer serve Bentham Road and extend the route to Abbey Wood station. There were 906 responses to this question.
Q5 What do you think of our proposals for route 472? 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure support oppose oppose R esponses 234 175 331 22 59 85 906 % 26 19 37 2 7 9 100
The main issues raised by respondents about the proposals for route 472 were:
Positive comments Positive: Generally Supportive 52 Changes/connections will have positive impact 12 Concerns Concerned that route 472 will not serve Thamesmead adequately 12 Concerned about lack of lack of bus stops at Western Way 5 Concerned about lack of night bus service along Bentham Rd 3 Concerned that extending this route will make the service overcrowded 3 Negative comments Negative: Opposed to the changes on route 472 34 472: Keep the frequency as it is 15 Don't think people will necessarily switch from buses to Elizabeth line 7 Changing the route would affect people's journeys particularly school journeys 4 Further Information request Will 472 still be 24 hours? 4 Where would 472 buses at Abbey Wood station stop when out of service given the flyover is having its lanes reduced? 3 Other comments Not sure/not affected 6
39 Suggestions 472: Run via Bentham Way rather than Crossway 4
4.2.6 Summary of responses to Question 6 Question 5 asked respondents thought of our proposal to introduce a new bus route, numbered 301, between Bexleyheath and Woolwich Town Centre, serving Abbey Wood and, Thamesmead. 907 people answered this question.
Q6 What do you think of our proposals for route 301? 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 326 246 228 19 19 69 907 % 36 27 25 2 2 8 100
The main issues raised by respondents were: Positive comments Generally supportive 61 Changes/connections will have positive impact 18 Strongly support 14 Concerns Concerned part of the bus route proposed (ie Knee Hill) is too narrow to 7 accommodate a bus Negative comments Generally opposed 12 Changes not needed 5 Changes do not adequately serve area 3 Suggestions Make it a double decker service 19 301: Alternative proposed areas of extension: Greenwich/Erith/Plumstead/Abbey 16 Wood/Bromley More areas need to be served: Welling/Eltham/ Grove Park/Catford/Belmarsh/ 15
40 Boardwaters Estate Frequency of buses need to be reconsidered 9 301 needs to run more directly between Bexleyheath and Abbey Wood 8 Terminate at Woolwich Dockyard instead of the ferry 4 Make 301 24hr service 3
4.2.7 Summary of responses to Question 7 Question 7 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to divert route 469 at Picardy Manorway to provide better connections to Abbey Wood Elizabeth line station for people in the Picardy Road, Woolwich Road and New Road area. There were 900 responses to this question.
Q7 What do you think of our proposals for route 469? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 153 154 405 24 53 111 900 % 17 17 45 3 6 12 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive comments Generally supportive 38 Good connection to Abbey Wood 5 Will create better links 5 Changes will have positive impact 5 Concerns/ Negative comments Generally opposed 17 People living on Abbey Road/Gilbert Road would lose a bus service 14 Concerned about the bus route distance being too long/longer bus journey 10 Concerned that bus frequency is not adequate 7 Changes not needed 6 Opposed to changes as it will require interchanging to reach destination 6 Concerned that Picardy Road is too narrow for a bus stop 5
41 Other comments Don’t use service/not affected 6 Suggestions Increase bus 469 frequency 8 Increase route 229 frequency to support changes to route 469 4 Introduce new routes instead 3 Route 469 should continue on from Woolwich road to Erith road and up Fraser 3 road to Erith
4.2.8 Summary of responses to Question 8 Question 8 asked respondents what they thought of our proposal to restructure route B11 to run between South Thamesmead (Yarnton Way) and Bexleyheath, running every 20 minutes. 897 people answered this question.
Q8 What do you think of our proposals for route B11? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 129 144 421 46 46 111 897 % 14 16 47 5 5 12 100
The table below shows the main issues raised in relation to the proposals for route B11:
Positive comments Generally Supportive 22 Concerns Concerned about lack of connection to Thamesmead Town Centre 13 Concerned about reduced bus frequency 4 Negative comments Generally opposed 23
42 Opposed to service reduction 15 Changes not needed 11 Poor connection between Bexleyheath/Welling & Abbey Wood 4 Other comments Do not use 4 Suggestions B11 needs to run more frequently especially during peak time & Sundays 26 Connection to Thamesmead Town Centre/Abbey Wood should be improved 4 Add a double decker bus on the B11 3
4.2.9 Summary of responses to Question 9 Question 9 asked respondents if they had any further comments or suggestions about our proposals for buses in South East London. The main comments and suggestions are listed in the table below:
Positive comments Generally Supportive of proposed changes 61 Negative comments Not every one will switch to Elizabeth line/some users prefer buses 13 Negative: Sceptical about TfL's motive for this consultation 12 Changes not needed/waste of funds 10 Changes will not benefit communities/those with disabilities/ vulnerable groups 8 Concerned that changes only serving Elizabeth line 6 Changes can increase cost of travel/ trains more expensive 6 Opposed to changes, bus route changes mean customers have to interchange 5 TfL's motive to changes, eg. force commuters to use bus routes 4 Concern about use of double decker buses on some narrow residential streets 4 Other comments Suggestions/comments relating to 16 bus routes in South East area not within scope of consultation 46 Other comments not relating to this consultation 34 Suggestions Improve bus services/ capacity in South East 65 Increase frequency of buses in South East area 16 Implement a direct bus route to service Welling to Abbey Wood 12 Use electric/ hybrid buses to reduce noise and pollution 9 Improve bus links to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital 7 Thamesmead area need more buses and choices 6 Better bus network to and around Plumstead area needed 5 TfL should address anti-social behaviour on bus network 3
43 Transport connections between Woolwich & Bromley Town Centre should be improved 3
44 4.3 Summary of responses to North East London proposals
4.3.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 We asked respondents how often they used these bus routes
Daily/nightl 2-3 times Once a 1-2 times a Not Rarely Never y a week week month answered Route 104 38 10% 29 7% 14 4% 35 9% 77 20% 197 51% 390 100% 241 23 6% 24 6% 10 3% 25 7% 81 21% 218 57% 381 100% 300 29 7% 26 7% 11 3% 34 9% 77 20% 210 54% 387 100% 330 20 5% 25 7% 13 3% 37 10% 77 20% 211 55% 383 100% 474 46 12% 35 9% 23 6% 48 12% 75 19% 170 43% 397 100%
4.3.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 Question 2 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to run route 104 between Stratford and Beckton and to introduce new route 304 between Manor Park and Custom House. There were 396 responses to this question.
Q2 What do you think of our proposals for route 104 and 304? 150
125
100
75
50
25
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 83 80 125 11 30 67 396 % 21 20 32 3 8 17 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive comments Generally supportive 24 304: Support new route between Manor Park & Custom House 3 104: Splitting the route/ more efficient/reliable 2 Negative comments 104: Oppose to changes 9 104: Leave as it is 9
45 Proposed changes will increase congestion 4 104/304: Changes not needed/ waste of money 4 104: Busy key route & to alter it would be a major inconvenience 4 Suggestions 104: Increase frequency 2 104: Extend Gallions Reach Shopping Park 2
4.3.3 Summary of responses to Question 3 Question 3 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to re-route the 300 via Tollgate Road, Prince Regent Lane, Victoria Dock Road, Custom House, Freemason’s Road, New Barn Street and Barking Road in order to provide better connections to Custom House Elizabeth line station. There were 400 responses to this question.
Q3 What do you think of our proposals for route 300? 150
125
100
75
50
25
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 69 54 144 22 33 78 400 % 17 14 36 6 8 20 100
The following table shows the main issues raised for question 3:
Positive comments Generally supportive 7 Supportive about additional service to Custom House Station & Freemason's Road 2 Better links will be created 2 Easier access to the Elizabeth line 2 Concerns/Negative comments Generally opposed/ leave as is 17 Increased traffic/ congestion to an already busy route 6 Concerned about broken link between Canning Town station & Newham University Hospital 6 Inconvenience to Council workers & school Kids going to Newham Dockside / Newham City Farm 3
46 Suggestions Consider people that use the bus along Prince Regents Lane & Freemasons Road 2 Night bus & replacement bus needed on Stansfeld Road 1
4.3.4 Summary of responses to Question 4
Question 4 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to extend route 241 from Stratford City bus station to East Wick, Here East and withdraw the route between Canning Town, Hermit Road and Custom House. There were 390 responses to this question.
Q4 What do you think of our proposals for route 241? 150
125
100
75
50
25
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 50 49 150 24 37 80 390 % 13 13 38 6 9 21 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive comments Generally supportive 7 Supportive of extension to East Wick 4 Partial support: Agree with extension to East Wick but not curtailment at Custom 3 House Negative comments Generally opposed / leave as is/ prefer current route 14 Withdraw of 241 between Canning Town & Custom House/ limited alternative 5 options Oppose due to loss of direct link between Keir Hardie Estate and Plaistow/ 4 Stratford Vulnerable people who rely on this bus will be forced to walk longer to catch 4 alternative bus Extension to East Wick not needed as 388 covers that route 3 Proposal will inconvenience a lot of people 3 Suggestions
47 Keep the route running to Canning town 2 241 should carry on to Prince Regent Station 2
4.3.5 Summary of responses to Question 5
Question 5 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to extend route 330 from Canning Town bus station to Silvertown. There were 392 responses to this question.
Q5 What do you think of our proposals for route 330? 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 82 77 133 17 15 68 392 % 21 20 34 4 4 17 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive comments Generally supportive 14 Supportive only if route is extended to Custom House 3
Increased bus service on North Woolwich Road 2 Negative comments Generally opposed 4 Not suitable alternative for 474 as leaves Pontoon Dock / West Silvertown station 4 area poorly served Inconvenience to local residents/ commuters 2 Suggestions Terminate at City Airport 6 Extend/ terminate at Canary Wharf 4
Make it a 24hr service 4 Extend to Prince Regent to connect with 474 3
48 4.3.6 Summary of responses to Question 6
Question 6 asked what respondents thought of our proposals to: a) Reroute the 474 eastbound only between Albert Road and Pier Road (North Woolwich Ferry); and b) Reroute the 474 between London City Airport and Canning Town in both directions to serve Custom House station, Victoria Dock Road and the Keir Hardie Estate. There were 397 responses to this question. Q6 What do you think of our proposals for route 474? 150
125
100
75
50
25
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 64 67 133 13 51 69 397 % 16 17 34 3 13 17 100
Respondents raised the following issues in response to the proposals for route 474:
Positive comments Generally supportive 10 Increased service to Custom House Station 4 Faster journey round the free ferry 2 Negative comments
Generally opposed 18 Loss of service/ night service along Silvertown way/ Pontoon Dock areas 16 Changing buses inconvenient/ costly/ longer journey 6 Difficulty accessing Britannia Village/ Gallions Reach/ GP surgery 6 Suggestions Bus route should be 24 hour service 2 Introduce a 24hr service to cover 'lost' service 2 Leave the 474 as it is and change other routes instead 2
49 4.3.7 Summary of responses to Question 7
Question 7 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to introduce new route 497 to serve the new Harold Wood Hospital development. There were 401 responses to this question.
Q7 What do you think of our proposals to introduce route 497? 200
150
100
50
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 89 54 165 2 7 84 401 % 22 13 41 0 2 21 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive comments Generally supportive 15 Strongly supportive 9 Will provide good links between new housing development, town centre & the 2 hospital Concerns/ Negative comments Some part of the route proposed not suitable for buses 6 Little space at Harold Wood for a bus stand 2 Any changes to parking on local roads to accommodate the bus will negatively 2 impact residents Chatteris Ave & Ashton Rd: Roads congested so buses will struggle to get 2 through Suggestions Extend/ install bus stop at Polyclinic to shorten the long walk especially for elderly/ 3 people with mobility issues Frequency should be increased to 20 mins 2 Increase frequency 2
50
4.3.8 Summary of responses to Question 8 Question 8 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to restructure route 115 to better serve Whitechapel station. There were 399 responses to this question. Q8 What do you think of our proposals for routes 115? 150
125
100
75
50
25
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 85 73 119 25 28 69 399 % 21 18 30 6 7 17 100
The following table shows the main issues raised for question 8:
Positive comments Generally supportive 14 Extension to Whitechapel Station 2 Concerns/ Negative comments Generally opposed 10 Leave it as it is/ current route works fine 7 Extended journey times due to congestion 6 Whitechapel Road highly congested & this could make it worse 5 Proposed route already served by routes such as 25 & 254 between Whitechapel 4 & Aldgate Pressure on 15 & 135 if 115 withdrawn from Commercial Road 3 Suggestions Consider routeing through the entire length of Sidney Street 2 Extend route 15 through Canning Town instead 2
4.3.9 Summary of responses to Question 9 Question 9 presented respondents with two options doe the proposed restructuring of route 115 to serve Whitechapel. Option 1 - buses would run via Jubilee Street, Stepney Way, Sidney Street and Whitechapel Road in both directions Option 2 - is the same as option 1 but buses would run via Stepney Way westbound only and Ashfield Street eastbound. There were 256 responses to this question.
51 Q9 What do you think of our options for route 115? 200
150
100
50
0 O ption 1 O ption 2 T ota l R esponses 191 65 256 % 75 25 100
4.3.10 Summary of responses to Question 10 Question 10 asked what respondents thought of our proposal to restructure route 25 to run between Ilford and Holborn Circus. There were 439 responses to this question.
Q10 What do you think of our proposals for route 25? 150
125
100
75
50
25
0 N either S trong ly S trong ly S upport support or Oppose N ot s ure T ota l support oppose oppose R esponses 34 37 113 45 148 62 439 % 8 8 26 10 34 14 100
The main issues raised by respondents were:
Positive comments Generally supportive 14 Negative comments Opposed to proposal/ leave as it is 55 Generally opposed 41 Forcing people onto the tube/Crossrail is not the answer 24 Buses provide cheaper/ easier access than having to take Elizabeth line then walk 23
52 Concern:25: There will be no other connection between East London and Oxford 14 Circus Opposed to reduction in frequency 13 Changing buses inconvenient/ costly if you fall outside the one hour hopper limit 13 whilst stuck in traffic Overcrowding/ pressure on route 8 as it will be the only bus serving Holborn 13 corridor Broken link between East London & Oxford Circus 12 Changes will impact on the ability to access Oxford Street 9 Holborn Circus is a poor terminus with no tube links 7 Opposed as bus is well used between Bank - Holborn Circus & Holborn 3 Route is overcrowded/ congested & always runs late (current route) 3 Not viable. Difficulty using underground 2 Suggestions Retain the route as far as Holborn Station 9 Don't make any changes to the 25 until it is clear what impact Elizabeth line will 6 have Terminate route at Tottenham Court Road or Farringdon (to connect with tube 4 lines & Elizabeth line) Increase frequency 3 Curtail it at Stratford instead of Ilford & keep the Oxford Circus section 2 Terminate route at St Bartholomew's Hospital instead 2 A night bus service along Oxford Street should be maintained 2 Extend the service to Bond Street and Marble Arch 2 Further Information request Have you considered how this may affect people on low wages who rely on the 25 12 to get to work cheaply? Would the night service still run on to Oxford Circus? 2 Other comments No opinion/ don't use route/ misunderstood 2
4.3.11 Summary of responses to Question 11 Question 11 asked respondents if they had any further comments or suggestions about our proposals for buses in North East London. The main comments and suggestions are listed in the table below:
Positive comments Generally supportive 22 Increased connections 3 Negative comments Against proposal/Leave it as is 7 Sceptical about consultation 6 Proposals for east London buses are not as good as others/ Ill-thought out plans 5
53 Some prefer to use buses (cheaper/more convenient, less walking) so new train 5 line won't make a difference Concerned for people with reduced mobility having to get on the train if bus 4 services reduced Seems TfL are changing bus routes with out really taking in users input 3 Consultation is not taking into account of all the people affected 2 Proposal does not cover North London well enough 2 Lack of bus network coverage in Silvertown 2 Suggestions Greater bus frequency needed 7 Changes must be supported by improved information & interchange facilities 3 New developments will require more buses not less 3 Provide a night service to cover Lonsdale Avenue 2 There needs to be better planning and increased services in this area 2
4.4 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides condensed summaries of the detailed feedback we received from stakeholders. The full stakeholder responses are always analysed.
London TravelWatch Generally accepted the principles behind the proposed changes but commented on some of the West London proposals:
Route 427 – commented that the proposed changes to the route would mean that some passengers will need to change to routes 207 or 607. Suggested a review of stopping arrangements to ensure easy interchange between these routes.
Route 440 – had received representations about the proposed changes, who felt that changing the route for potential users of the Elizabeth line does not take into consideration current users of this service who need this route to get to work, school, shops and medical facilities and would rarely use the Elizabeth line.
Smith’s Farm Estate – asked if a request from residents of Smith’s Farm Estate to have bus access to Southall centre could be considered as part of these proposals.
West London
London Borough of Ealing Supported proposals to change the route of both the 95 and E5 in the Dormers Wells area and to extend the 95 to the new Southall Waterside High Street.
Strongly supported proposals to extend route 112 to Osterley Tesco.
Strongly supported the proposed changes to route 140/N140, and the introduction of new routes X140 and 278.
54 Supported proposals to run route 266 between Acton Town Hall and Brent Cross Shopping Centre (retaining the current 266 route for the night service). Strongly supported the proposal to introduce new route 218 between Hammersmith and North Acton.
Strongly opposed the proposal to reduce the frequency of route 427 and reroute it to Southall. Felt that this would cause crowding on the remaining Uxbridge Road routes. Commented that the Uxbridge Road is a very busy bus corridor with growing demand. Did not agree that significant numbers of bus passengers would switch to the Elizabeth line, as buses are cheaper than Tube/rail services and offer a more direct service for passengers. Suggested that more bus capacity was needed on this bus corridor, not less.
Also asked to see an increased bus service provision in the Park Royal area.
London Borough of Hillingdon Strongly supported proposed changes to route 140, as well as the introduction of new routes X140 and 278. Also supported the proposed changes to route 427 and proposals to extend route H32 which would increase transport choices to and from Hayes and Harlington station.
Felt that new route 278 would fill a gap in the Hillingdon bus network, connecting the north and south of the borough, but suggested that it be changed to run from Uxbridge Road via West Drayton Road, Harlington Road and Botwell Common Road joining Botwell Lane towards Hayes.
Also suggested that a new bus service be introduced between Uxbridge and West Drayton station, that route 222 be made into a limited stop ‘express’ service with vehicles and stops branded as serving the Elizabeth line.
Commented on the work already being carried out between TfL and the Council to introduce a new service along Nestles Avenue in Hayes, and felt this should be considered an integral part of the bus changes to support the opening of the Elizabeth line.
Were pleased that TfL recognises the challenges faced by outer London Boroughs in achieving the Healthy Streets approach within the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, and welcomes any extra investment provided to bring bus service provision on parity with other parts of the City. Would also be interested in learning more about proposed ‘demand-responsive’ bus options being considered by the Mayor for parts of London cut off by poor Tube, train and public transport links.
55 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Strongly supported proposed changes to route 266 and the introduction of new routes 218 and 306, which would provide a more reliable bus service in the Askew Road area of Hammersmith. Were disappointed however, that these proposed changes would not be due to be implemented until December 2019. Felt that the reliability of route 266 is a problem and would like to see these changes implemented as soon as possible.
Daniel Crawford, Acton Central ward councillor, London Borough of Ealing Supported the proposed changes to route 112. Also supported the proposals for new routes X140, 278 and night service N140.
Strongly opposed the proposed changes for route 266 and the introduction of new routes 218 and 306. Felt the proposals were dangerous and misguided and commented that the direct connection to Hammersmith provided by route 266 is valued by his older, disabled and vulnerable constituents. Suggested the proposals would introduce a level of disruption that doesn’t currently exist. Commented that the consultation documents were not clear about what sufficient capacity meant and was concerned that there would not be an increase in frequency and reliability in reality.
Opposed the proposed changes to route 427. Felt that this change would remove services both in terms of regularity and depth that currently work for Acton residents. Also opposed the proposals for route 440, and was very concerned that these alterations would remove the service entirely from West Acton residents and disadvantage those residents who are served by the current route.
Opposed the proposal to extend route H32.
Katherine Crawford, East Acton ward councillor, London Borough of Ealing Strongly opposed the proposed changes to route 266/N266 which currently provides a direct, safe and frequent double-deck service between East Acton and Hammersmith throughout the day and night.
Opposed to the proposals for new route 218 because it will split up the existing route 266. Has reservations about the frequency of the new service – suggested that it is an inadequate attempt to deliver similar capacity to what is currently provided, and concerned about the impact on Acton residents. Felt that there was not enough information provided to give reassurance about the proposed change.
Strongly opposed the proposals for a new route 306 between Fulham Sand’s End and Acton Vale.
Opposed the proposed reduction in frequency and rerouting of route 427 to Southall Elizabeth line station. Concerned that there would not be sufficient capacity on new
56 route 278 to cope with the busiest points of the existing route 427, and that there are constituents to reach parts of the borough that are inaccessible by other means.
Opposed to the proposal to reroute the 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick High Road. Felt that while the 440 route is in need of some reconfiguration, at a time when the local population is increasing, the proposed change would cut off a large number of residents in West Acton and East Acton. Has been contacted by constituents who are alarmed about this potential change.
Also felt that the proposals had not been widely publicised, lack public support and would be a step backwards for local residents.
Gary Busuttil, Southfield ward councillor, London Borough of Ealing Strongly opposed the proposed change to route 440, as it is the only bus in Chiswick that passes the medical centre there and is a useful link to Acton Green.
Understood that bus routes are being designed to coincide with the Elizabeth line, but suggested that the only change to route 440 should be for it to turn onto Lynton Road from Twyford Avenue as opposed to Noel Road, then turn left at the end of Lynton Road to pass Acton Mainline station.
Andrew Steed, Southfield ward councillor, London Borough of Ealing Supported the proposals to extend route 112 to Osterley.
Supported proposals to restructure route 266 to run between Acton Town Hall and Brent Cross Shopping Centre if it would improve reliability, but commented that the Acton-Hammersmith section of the route had not appeared particularly troublesome.
Supported the introduction of new route 218 between Hammersmith and North Acton but questioned whether a single deck bus would provide sufficient capacity. Also supported the introduction of new route 306 between Fulham and Acton Vale.
Could not see the justification for the proposal to reroute the 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick High Road.
Felt there was insufficient detail about the proposals and would like to have seen statistics on passenger numbers and journey times for example.
Caroline Needham, Askew ward councillor, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham C ommented that route 266 is crowded with buses leaving the bus station already full leaving people at Long S treet stops severely delayed.
57 S uggested that holders of freedom passes that regularly use the routes are also consulted.
Sue Anderson, Greenhill ward councillor, London Borough of Harrow Opposed the proposal for route 140 to longer serve Heathrow. C oncerned that the route will terminate at Hayes and Harlington which according to the map of the E lizabeth line is only s tep free from pla tform to s treet not tra in to s treet. S upported the proposal to introduce new route X140 and strongly supported the renumbering if the night 140 service to route N140 running between Heathrow Airport and Harrow Weald.
NHS NW London Healthcare Commented that the proposed change to route 427 will reduce direct access from the western part of Uxbridge Road to Ealing Hospital, and from Ealing generally to Hillingdon Hospital. Acknowledged that passengers could still get to hospitals by changing buses or via a short walk, but stated this was not ideal for passengers with reduced mobility. Understood the logic of diverting route 427 to serve Southall station but felt that consideration should be given to the route continuing along Uxbridge Road, passing Ealing Hospital to a new terminus near Hanwell station. Suggested that this would provide a more direct link between the Elizabeth line and Ealing Hospital and may be faster than travelling along South Road to and from Southall station.
Understood the proposed curtailment of route 223 at Northwick Park Hospital in relation to releasing stand space at Harrow bus station, but felt that this would be better achieved by extending route 395 from Kymberley Road/Harrow bus station to the hospital. This would provide new links to the hospital from South Harrow, Northolt and North Greenford. Suggested that the proposed frequency of route X140 may mean that routes 223 and 395 need to moved from Harrow bus station. In which case, suggested that the Northwick Park Hospital terminus should be at stop HV.
Strongly suggested that if route 223 is curtailed at Northwick Park Hospital, any vehicle time released should be used towards a southern extension from Wembley to Central Middlesex Hospital. Mentioned that the lack of direct access from Central Harrow, Northwick Park and North Wembley to Central Middlesex Hospital has been raised in the past.
Supported the proposal to reroute the 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick High Road but disappointed that an alternative of extending route 440 from Stonebridge Park station to Wembley Park station was not part of these proposals as this would provide a faster link from Wembley High Road to Central Middlesex Hospital.
Strongly supported proposals to introduce the limited stop route X140, although felt that there would need to be bus priority measures introduced in Northolt and
58 Yeading for it to work; in particular, suggested that 24 hour bus lanes in Northolt. Also supported the night 140 service being renumbered as route N140 operating between Heathrow Airport and Harrow Weald, as well as the introduction of new route 278 between Heathrow and Ruislip.
Supported the proposal to reroute the 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick High Road, and suggested starting it at Wembley Park to give a fast Wembley-Park Royal link.
Ealing Cycling Campaign Commented on the proposed extension of route 112 to Osterley Tesco. Felt that a key objective should be to reduce the number of bus movements on Haven Green. Suggested that the extended route 112 would duplicate existing private shuttle buses from Haven Green, so these services should be withdrawn, along with a concerted effort to encourage cycling along this corridor.
Also suggested a revised routeing of route 112. Southbound, the route should use Madeley Road, incorporating the cycling improvements submitted in the Ealing Cycling Campaign’s response to the recent consultation about rerouteing the 112 along Madeley Road. At Haven Green, route 112 should share bus stop C with route 65.
Northbound, suggested the 112 should continue to use The Mall, sharing stop H with route 483, and avoid Haven Green altogether.
Ealing Passenger Transport Users Group Suggested that route X140 should not serve the Central Area of Heathrow but should travel via the North West corner of the airport to terminate at Terminal 5 (with the option of continuing to the Cargo Village).
West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society Strongly opposed the proposals to extend route 112 from Ealing Broadway to Osterley. Felt the proposed route would be unreliable because of its length and the number of congested areas it would operate through. Also mentioned that there are already three high frequency routes running between Ealing Broadway and the Great West Road, so extending route 112 would be an unnecessary waste of resources.
Felt that a bus route from Osterley Tesco to Brentford and Chiswick would be more useful to provide a connection for shoppers who cannot walk to the H91 stops on the Great West Road. This would provide enhanced links to Gunnersbury station and new housing developments around Chiswick roundabout, Kew Bridge and Brentford as well as relieving route H91.
59 Suggested that increasing the frequency of route H91 would also be a better use of TfL resources, as there has been a large increase in usage since the H91 was rerouted in 2010 with further passenger growth expected as new housing and office developments are underway.
Strongly opposed the proposal to reroute the 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick High Road. Stated that local residents around Oxford Road North and Wellesley Road, Chiswick consider that route 440 does not meet their needs for a through bus service to the eastern part of Chiswick town centre and Hammersmith.
Felt that since route H91 was rerouted in January 2010 and replaced with an extension to route 440, passengers using the 440 from Oxford Road North and Wellesley Road have dropped significantly. Suggested that the low frequency and unreliability of the 440 mean journeys are undertaken by foot or using alternative high frequency bus services instead. Commented that the extension to Power Road has not increased usage as there are other, more frequent bus services available on Chiswick High Road.
Suggested that the 440 should continue to serve Acton Green but should terminate at Turnham Green Church rather than Power Road. The bus service along Wellesley Road should instead be provided by route 391 which should be diverted away form Chiswick High Road to avoid the traffic congestion in the evening. By offering a through service to Hammersmith and Richmond, bus usage along Wellesley Road would be more attractive to the residential population south of Chiswick High Road. Through passengers would benefit from journey time improvements on account of avoiding congestion on Chiswick High Road.
The proposed frequency reduction to route 391 would make a diversion along Wellesley Road acceptable in terms of noise and disturbance because there would not be an increase in buses along Wellesley Road compared to route 440. This would mean route 27 could use the Power Road terminus and be rerouted away from the isolated stops at Chiswick Business Park, as well as serving the bus stops on Chiswick High Road outside Gunnersbury station. This would provide a high frequency of service to Hammersmith.
Felt the consultation was poor regarding the proposed frequency reductions of routes 391 and E3, as there is nowhere on the questionnaire where respondents could leave comments about these proposed changes.
Creffield Area Residents Association/ Central Acton Neighbourhood Forum (submitted identical responses) Supported route 266 running between Acton Town Hall and Brent Cross. Strongly opposed the introduction of new route 218 as proposed and suggested that instead it runs from Hammersmith to the Central Middlesex Hospital via Acton Main Line, as
60 the hospital will need better access from the south. Also felt that the 218 does not take into account that many current users do not commute out of the Ealing/Acton/Chiswick area, and that currently route 440 works well for people in the Creffield Area Residents Association/Central Acton Neighbourhood Forum areas. Suggested that both the 218 and the 440 towards North Acton should pick up at Asda car park.
With regard to the proposed withdrawal of route 223, suggested there is a requirement for a more direct bus service between Acton/Ealing Broadway and Northwick Park Hospital.
Commented that many passengers using routes 207 and 427 are local and the Elizabeth line would not be of use to them. Felt there could be increased usage on routes 427, 207 and 607 with travelling to Ealing Broadway to commute by train. Suggested a new bus stop at Denehurst Gardens for those wishing to use the Elizabeth line at Ealing Broadway.
Strongly opposed the proposed changes to route 440. Felt that changing the route for potential users of the Elizabeth line does not take into consideration current users of this service who need this route to get to work, school, shops and medical facilities and would rarely use the Elizabeth line.
Stamford Book Residents Association Strongly opposed proposals to restructure the day service of route 266 and introduce new route 218 between Hammersmith and North Acton, as the current 266 routeing would allow passengers from the Stamford Brook area to use between Askew Road and the Elizabeth line station at Acton. Commented that although the new route 218 would serve Askew Road, it would not serve Acton station, and felt this problem would be compounded by the proposal to change route 440 so that it no longer serves Acton Green. Suggested that it would be better if the new route 218 covered the present route of the 266.
West Ealing Centre Neighbourhood Forum Asked why there were no bus changes for West Ealing Station. Suggested a bus route from south of the Uxbridge Road via Lido Junction to stop at West Ealing Elizabeth line station, possibly also travelling onto Gurnell Leisure Centre and Brentside Secondary School.
Ealing Christian Centre Commented that because route 95 serves the A40 on much of the route, it is subject to delays during the day.
Supported the proposed extension to Osterley Tesco for route 112. Strongly supported the proposed changes to route 140, including the introduction of new
61 route X140 and renumbering the night service as N140. Was unsure about the proposed new route 278.
Supported the proposal to restructure route 266 and introduce new routes 218 and 306. Also supported the proposed frequency reduction on route 427 and rerouting to Southall Elizabeth line station. Suggested that if the proposed rerouting of the 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick Road went ahead, the frequency of the route should be increased.
Allied Data Resources Ltd Strongly supported the proposed changes to route 140 and the introduction of new limited stop route X140 between Harrow bus station and Heathrow Airport. Supported the proposals for the renumbering of the night service between Harrow and Heathrow Airport as route N140 and the introduction of new route 278 between Heathrow Airport and Ruislip station.
Commented that West Ealing station was poorly served by buses. Suggested that the frequency of route E7 should be increased and/or a direct bus service between West Ealing and Northfields to improve connectivity between the Elizabeth line and the Piccadilly line. Felt this would also relieve crowding at Ealing Broadway.
U3A Uxbridge group Strongly supported the proposal to reduce the frequency of route 140 and withdraw it between Hayes & Harlington station and Heathrow. Also strongly supported the proposal to introduce a new route 278 between Heathrow Airport and Ruislip station; felt that this would improve journey times from Long Lane, Hillingdon to Ickenham, Ruislip and the airport. Commented that bus routes in West London need to be brought up to date to accommodate all the new people coming into the area.
Ruislip Residents' Association Strongly supported the proposal to introduce a new route 278 between Heathrow Airport and Ruislip station. Felt that this would provide a useful connection between Ruislip/Ickenham and Hillingdon, Hayes and Heathrow for which there are currently no simple travel options. Would be interested to know the expected journey time from Ruislip to Heathrow.
Potters Bar and St. Albans Transport User Group Strongly supported the proposed changes to routes 95 and E5 in the Dormers Wells area, and extend route 95 to Southall Waterside High Street.
Commented that traffic on route 112 is busy and extending the route to Osterley Tesco would cause reliability problems. Suggested the route should use double deck buses.
62 Supported the proposed change to restructure route 140, and renumber the night service as route N140. Would like to maintain the link between Harrow and Heathrow and suggested running the route in overlapping sections. Strongly supported the proposed introduction of express route X140 to Heathrow. Would like to see airport branded, coach style vehicles on the route. Strongly support the proposal for a new route 278 between Heathrow Airport and Ruislip.
Supported the proposed changes to route 266 and introduction of routes 218 and 306 but suggested running the routes in sections or overlapping with new routes to avoid upheaval for those familiar with existing routes.
Commented that withdrawing route 223 between Harrow bus station and Northwick Park Hospital would lose a Harrow – Wembley link which may present a capacity problem during Wembley events.
Strongly supported proposals to reroute routes 427 and 440, and extend route H32.
Suggested that route 607 should become a single deck express route to link with route X140. Also suggested that an express route X222 should be introduced between Uxbridge and Heathrow via West Drayton Elizabeth line station. Felt that a review of vehicle size/ frequency was required on routes E1, E2, E3 E5 and E6 to ensure capacity matched usage.
RATP Dev London (Bus operator) Supported the proposals
South East London
London Borough of Bexley Generally supported the proposed bus services changes in Bexley and, in particular, supported the introduction of new route 301 from Bexleyheath. Were concerned, however, that other links to Abbey Wood (eg. to/from Crayford via Perry Street and Northumberland Heath, and to/from Welling) have not been proposed, and would like this to be reviewed as soon as possible.
Made the following comments on the individual route proposals, as follows:
Route 180 – welcomed the proposal to extend the route to Erith Quarry, but were concerned about the proposal to terminate the route at North Greenwich rather than Lewisham. Commented that Lewisham was a critical interchange destination for local residents, and noted that North Kent rail services were being reduced.
63 Route 469 – felt it was unacceptable that the proposed changes to this route would mean that Abbey Road residents would lose a direct service to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, especially as the area is expected to see significant population growth in the next five years. Were also concerned that the proposal would result in more buses on Picardy Road, and felt this would lead to congestion as vehicles are required to give way.
Routes 472 and B11 – were concerned about the current bus stand facilities at the proposed new terminus points of both routes and were keen to work with TfL to resolve bus stand capacity in the area.
Route 301 – would like an update on the route check on Knee Hill. Noted that if Knee Hill was not considered viable, the only alternative would be for the route to serve New Road, where there are local concerns about route B11 already using this route.
Commented that many students travel from Thamesmead to Bexleyheath and wanted assurance that the potential increased demand between Thamesmead town centre and Abbey Wood in particular had been accounted for, especially as the route would be using single-deck buses.
Acknowledged that the proposed changes were designed to provide enough capacity until 2021 and suggested that it would be essential to closely monitor the changes implemented to identify further improvements over the next four years.
Royal Borough of Greenwich Commented that as the Royal Borough is not well served by Tube and rail networks, they have supported the construction of the Elizabeth line and the new stations at Woolwich and Abbey Wood, and are eager to ensure the benefits of the new line are maximised. Therefore welcomed TfL’s pro-active approach to adjusting and improving the bus network ahead of the opening of the Elizabeth line. However, would like TfL to commit to an early review of demand/usage for buses after the Elizabeth line opens and quickly make further changes to the network as necessary.
Noted that the proposals do not improve north-south links within the Royal Borough. Felt there was scope to introduce fast services between location such as Mottingham/Eltham and Woolwich, and Kidbrooke/Blackheath and North Greenwich, to give residents an alternative to the South-Eastern rail network, and would like a commitment from TfL to review opportunities to improve north-south bus links.
Strongly supported the proposed introduction of new route 301, although commented that it should not be considered a long term alternative to a DLR extension to Thamesmead.
64 Have expressed concern previously about congestion at the Woolwich Ferry roundabout and felt that the reliability of the 301 and other routes covered by these proposals may be compromised by delays at the roundabout. Would like TfL to revisit earlier work on possible solutions to the congestion problem at the roundabout.
Accepted that the introduction of route 301 will mitigate the proposed changes to route B11 and reduction of route 472. However, felt the 301 needed a frequency of more than 5 buses per hour was required to accommodate the levels of growth along the route and potential of diverted rail trips.
Welcomed the extension of route 472 to Abbey Wood but did not support the proposed frequency reduction. Wanted to discuss the location of the route 472 terminus at Abbey Wood in due course.
Understood the proposed changes to routes 129 and 180 but concerned that about the impact on residents who use route 180 to travel to Lewisham as a less expensive alternative to rail services. Commented that as a result of the proposed changes, those residents would not only have to change buses but would need to use route 129 which will run at a lower frequency. Did not support the reduction in frequency of route 129 as felt no rationale for the change had been given. Also felt it was unreasonable to expect passengers to travel all the way to North Greenwich to interchange between routes 129 and 180 without having to cross the road between stops. Felt it was vital that TfL reconsider the impact of these aspects of the proposals for routes 129 and 180 before any changes were introduced.
Wanted assurance that the proposed increased length of route 469 would not compromise reliability elsewhere along the route or disadvantage passengers travelling between the Royal Borough and Belvedere/Erith.
Strongly supported the proposal to introduce double deck buses on route 178, 244 and 291. Felt it was essential that the double deck buses serving the route utilise the latest technology to help improve air quality.
Supported the need to make changes to route 161 to allow for the improved pedestrian crossing across the A206. Would welcome the opportunity to discuss the location of bus stops on John Wilson Street. Commented that it was particularly relevant to route 161 that route reliability was not compromised by congestion at the Woolwich Ferry roundabout.
Felt that with the opening of the Elizabeth line station alongside enhanced bus services, it was essential for bus stopping arrangements in Woolwich town centre and in particular General Gordon Square should be rationalised where possible to
65 reduce crowding at stops without compromising interchange. Would welcome the opportunity to discuss this as soon as possible.
Teresa Pearce MP, Erith and Thamesmead Welcomed TfL looking at how bus services in her constituency might be altered to better connect residents into the Elizabeth line, which will be within the range of most constituents.
Commented that Abbey Wood station is likely to become a transport interchange destination for many people travelling from further afield, and expressed concern that this may lead to traffic congestion in Abbey Wood. Felt that this may cause a knock- on effect for bus services. Suggested that bus reliability may also be affected by housing developments in the vicinity of the station. Also mentioned that some constituents are concerned about the impact of school children travelling at peak times and suggested that additional capacity is required on certain routes.
Suggested that there needed to be arrangements in place to make quick adjustments to bus frequency etc. as necessary once the Elizabeth line is operating.
Welcomed the proposed new route 301 between Bexleyheath and Woolwich which would provide a link for constituents travelling to Abbey Wood or Woolwich stations. However, expressed concern that the frequency of route 301 would be less than that of routes it replaced (eg. route 472 on Bentham Road and Nathan Way. Was also concerned about the proposed routeing of the 301 via Knee Hill and suggested the alternative route via New Road would serve more residents.
Felt that the proposed reduction in frequency of route 472 would seem to work against better connections to Elizabeth line stations.
Commented that the proposal to withdraw route B11 between South Thamesmead and Thamesmead town centre would be to the detriment of passengers who find it difficult to change between buses, and also suggested a rethink of the proposed frequency reduction of the route.
Welcomed the extension of route 180 to The Quarry, Erith but felt that withdrawing the service to Fisher’s Way and Belvedere Industrial Estate would have an adverse effect on workers who use public transport to travel there.
Relayed the concern of some constituents about the proposed introduction of double deck buses on the residential roads along the route.
Commented that the Elizabeth line will be a game changer in her constituency which needed to be supported by an effective local bus network. Felt that the introduction of new route 301 would be an important step in the right direction but should not be
66 at the expense of alterations or frequency cuts to other routes, since the Elizabeth line is likely to increase demand on a bus network that is already strained at peak times.
Concluded that the more frequent bus services are, the less likely people are to use their cars which would help the effort to improve air quality, which is a major priority for the Mayor and Londoners.
Conservative councillors, Royal Borough of Greenwich Disappointed that the proposals do not include plans for an express bus from Mottingham to the Elizabeth line at Woolwich, via Eltham and Shooters Hill, especially as under the proposals route 161 would stop further away from the new Elizabeth line station.
Have been proposing such a route for several years, and TfL had been positive about it. Suggested that it would be similar to route 161 (and could be funded by replacing some 161 services), and would be of particular benefit to Shooters Hill residents who have no nearby station. Felt that as a limited stop service, it could save 10-15 minutes journey time between Mottingham and Woolwich, while providing an additional option for Eltham residents to the single point of failure that the train network represents.
Felt that without even a trial of such a route residents in Eltham and Mottingham would be highly unlikely to use the Elizabeth line.
Gary Parker, Charlton ward councillor, Royal Borough of Greenwich Strongly opposed the proposed changes to routes 180 and 472. Commented that both routes will also see changes at the other ends of their routes, and felt that the change to the 180 will make it harder to reach Greenwich from Charlton, Woolwich, Plumstead and Abbey Wood.
E ltham Public Transport Users Group Commented on the proposed changes to route 161. Agreed that if the Royal Borough of Greenwich is altering the roads in Woolwich, the route will need to be changed. However was disappointed that the 161 towards North Greenwich will be routed further away from the Elizabeth line station. Also wanted to know where the bus stop would be located to alight for Woolwich Arsenal station.
East Greenwich Residents Association Felt that if the proposals go ahead, route 180 would no longer serve East Greenwich, reducing the number of buses and worsening the connections from East Greenwich to the Elizabeth line.
67 Also commented that although the proposals replace route 180 with route 129 between Greenwich centre and Lewisham, the proposed peak time frequency reduction on route 129 represents an overall cut in public transport options for East Greenwich residents.
Felt that no public transport improvements are offered by these proposed changes for East Greenwich, despite large expected population increases and the development of other local traffic generators such as an IKEA, Silvertown Tunnel, London cruise port and possible extra use of the O2.
Mentioned that air pollution on major roads in East Greenwich and asked that all buses using the A206 should be low-emission or more efficient vehicles as soon as possible.
EGRA concluded that the proposals are a wholly inadequate response to the transport needs of East Greenwich, and would be happy to discuss the issues raised by the proposals as well as the wider public transport matters affecting East Greenwich.
The Eltham Society Concerned about the proposed alterations to route 161 in Woolwich as they will take the route further away from Woolwich Arsenal station/DLR and the Arsenal site and the Elizabeth line station. Also commented that there was no indication given of where the bus would stop and suggested that this needed to be as close to Woolwich Arsenal station as possible.
Suggested that a new express bus service to Woolwich along the A208/A205 from Mottingham via Eltham and Shooters Hill would provide people in those parts of South-East London access to the Elizabeth line. Failure to do so would increase pressure on an already congested network when developments in Kidbrooke and Lewisham are finished.
South Greenwich Forum Concerned that the proposed changes to route 161 represent a deterioration to the service from the south of the borough. Accepted that the proposed changes are to allow for improvements to the pedestrian and cyclist crossing on Plumstead Road. However felt that this would disadvantage passengers by taking the route further away from Woolwich Arsenal mainline and DLR station. In turn, this would take passengers further away from current and future objectives, such as the Heritage Centre, the River Thames, as well as the Elizabeth line station.
Commented that the proposals did not give details of where the revised route 161 would stop and stated that a bus stop must be provided as close to Woolwich Arsenal station as possible.
68
Also agreed with other local groups that there should be a new bus service to the Elizabeth line at Woolwich from the south; eg. from Mottingham via Eltham and Shooters Hill. Felt that not providing a bus service to connect to the Elizabeth line station from the south leaves the area relying on an already congested network, which will become even more congested when new developments at Kidbrooke and Lewisham are complete.
Transport for Charlton Suggested that TfL needed to change its methods of consultation with stakeholder groups by introducing high quality, face to face engagement with local communities, rather than the current ‘arms-length’ processes.
Felt the consultation did not pay sufficient attention to the impact on local journeys – not everyone will want to connect to the Elizabeth line or use parallel rail services.
Suggested that some passengers who use route 180 between Charlton and Lewisham as part of a multi-stage journey would incur additional fares under the proposed changes, as their new journey would fall outside the scope of the Hopper fare. Commented that the necessity to change buses where this was not previously necessary would disproportionately affect people with mobility impaired passengers. Felt that the proposed extension of route 129 does not make up for the disruption of forcing passengers to split their journey.
Suggested that bus services provide an essential alternative when other modes are disrupted. Felt that although some of the proposed changes are helpful in these circumstances, reducing capacity between Greenwich and Woolwich represents a decline in service for passengers relying on these routes.
Given the proposed reduction in frequency on route 472, would like to see the peak- time diversion of westbound 472 buses at Charlton station become a full-time feature of the service.
Felt the proposed changes do not pay enough attention to the anticipated residential and business growth in the Charlton area, and provide little reference to people’s travel needs and preferences for shopping.
Welcomed the maintenance of the existing frequency on route 161, and the introduction of double deck buses on routes 178, 244 and 291. Felt that new route 301 would provide a useful onward connection for those travelling from Charlton to Bexleyheath.
Concluded that bus services across south east London have evolved and been adjusted to meet changing needs over many years, possibly to a greater extent than
69 in other parts of London. Felt that the current bus network frequently fails to meet the needs of users, and suggested that it is time for a thorough review of services across south east London.
North East London
London Borough of Newham Commented only on the proposed changes affecting services in Newham, namely routes 104/304, 241, 300, 330, and 474.
Recognised that the introduction of the Elizabeth line will result in considerable changes to bus use, for example, the approaches to Custom House station from the north, and between East Ham High Street and Manor Park station. Also commented that growth will arise from the continued regeneration of the Borough, particularly in the Canning Town, Custom House and Silvertown areas, and felt that buses could be particularly responsive to short term changes in demands.
Keen to see the benefits of the arrival of the Elizabeth line maximised across the borough, and particularly in the Royal Docks where public transport opportunities are more limited, but wanted to ensure that the proposed changes maximise the benefit to surrounding area. Also felt it was important that any revised services retain important connections.
Recognised that some trips would be broken by the changes but were concerned that although there would be no financial penalty thanks to the hopper fare, having to change at all would be an inconvenience. Felt therefore that it was important that strong links to social and community facilities were not broken if possible, and where interchange is needed that it was essential that it be made as straightforward as possible. In the case of route 330, suggested this may involve extension of the service beyond the proposed terminus at Connaught Bridge. Would work with TfL to ensure the best interchange experience for passengers.
Urged TfL to take on board representations from, and work with, Newham CCG to ensure that there is bus access to proposed new healthcare facilities in the Royal Docks area and that their catchment areas are served by the proposed changes.
Commented that it was a long term aspiration to connect the southern Royal Docks to Gallions Reach shopping centre and it was disappointing that no connection to Gallions Reach is proposed in these service changes. Stated that there are ongoing discussions about the creation of a more mixed-use centre at Gallions Reach, and hoped that service provision to Gallions Reach could be reviewed again should these development proposals materialise.
70 Suggested that there are significant areas of Beckon that will rely on bus services to connect with the Elizabeth line at Custom House. Felt that the provision of good access to services across a wider area was often at the expense of directness and subsequently journey times. Asked that TfL make sure that the correct emphasis on journey times is reflected in the services proposed, so that the time benefits of high speed rail services are not diminished.
Noted that there are locations along the routes of the proposed services which are subject to traffic congestion, eg. Tollgate Road, Prince Regent Lane and High Street South are all existing delay hotspots. Will work with TfL on bus priority schemes to deliver journey time improvements.
Would like to see more TfL funded Countdown signs at bus stops in conjunction with these proposed changes.
Welcomed the inclusion of an improved north-south link between the Royal Docks and areas north of the A13. Noted that the need for connecting Custom House and London City Airport is yet to be determined but felt the link would be useful for employees.
Were very concerned that the proposals for route 474 will mean that the growth corridor on North Woolwich Road would no longer be served a 24hr bus service, while a less dense development would gain one, even though the Elizabeth line station at Custom House will not be in 24hr operation. Urged TfL to consider providing another service 24hr route to serve those areas that lose their night service, or to devise a different night service linking to the night Tube at Canning Town, more matched to night-time demand in the Royal Docks area.
Will work with TfL to deliver the necessary bus infrastructure at Custom House, both through the delivery of a new interchange scheme at Freemasons Road, and through the delivery of interim stopping and standing facilities. Anticipated that TfL would fund these interim facilities.
Intends to deliver a high quality public realm and interchange improvement scheme at Custom House, but noted that an interim interchange and public realm scheme would be required in time for the arrival of the Elizabeth line. Will shortly be starting design of the interim and final schemes and TfL will be among the key stakeholders in the development of options.
Commented that there had some concern over the proposals in the local community, particularly those served by route 474, but that this was subsequently abated somewhat when the overall proposals had been explained. Felt that this was in part down to the way the proposals were presented in the consultation material. Suggested that a composite plan showing all of the proposals rather than individual
71 route maps would have helped respondents see the bigger picture of the overall proposals.
London Borough of Havering Recognised that route 497 would be essential not only as a link with Elizabeth line services from Harold Wood station, but also in providing greater connectivity between key centres/locations, such as the Kings Park area, the local shopping centre in Harold Hill, supermarkets, and more significantly the Harold Wood Polyclinic.
Also supported the other recommendations that came out of the Harold Hill bus review, namely increased frequency on route 174 and double decking route 256.
David Christie, Beckton ward councillor, London Borough of Newham Supported the proposals to introduce route 304 between Manor Park and Custom House and run route 104 between Stratford and Beckton. Also supported the proposal to extend route 330 to Silvertown. Felt that the proposals provided little improvement to service between the Beckton area and Custom House. Suggested that a more frequent bus service from Tollgate Road to Custom House and other DLR stations (for example, by increasing the frequency of route 300) could extend the reach of Elizabeth line services. Commented that rerouting the 300 away from Prince Albert DLR would lead to delays at the junction of Tollgate Road and Prince Regent Lane. Felt that little account had been taken of journey time changes to DLR and Elizabeth line stations and would like to see evidence of journey time changes.
Rokhsana Fiaz, Custom House ward councillor, London Borough of Newham Opposed the proposed changes to routes 241 and 25. Strongly supported the other proposals for buses in North East London. Preferred option 1 for the proposals for route 115 (to run via Jubilee Street, Stepney Way, Sidney Street and Whitechapel Road in both directions). Commented that the overall proposals were broadly good, improving accessibility to the south of Newham where major developments are taking place.
Terence Paul, Stratford and New Town ward councillor, London Borough of Newham Commented that if the proposed changes to route 300 go ahead, passengers would have reduced access to Newham Dockside, and would like us to reconsider these proposals.
Alex Donald, Harold Wood ward councillor, London Borough of Havering Strongly supported the proposal to introduce new route 497, but suggested it should also go into the Polyclinic to help and encourage elderly residents to visit the health centre and also cut down on car use.
72 Newham Clinical Commissioning Group (NCCG) Commented that they are seeking new GP premises at Pontoon Dock to replace existing surgeries at Britannia Village and Albert Road. Stated that most patients will wish to access the new premises by bus and felt that it was essential for these patients that route 474 continued on its existing route to enable them to do so. Were very concerned that rerouteing the 474 via Connaught Bridge would mean that patients travelling from the east – many of whom are elderly with long term health needs – would be extremely disadvantaged by having to change buses.
London City Airport Supported the change of route 474 to provide a link to Custom House station and ExCeL, noting that it now no longer serves Silvertown Way and North Woolwich Road.
Supported the principle of the change to route 330 as this opens up the Royal Docks area around the airport to a wider bus catchment area. However, were concerned that the proposed changes reduce specific local access to/from Silvertown Way and North Woolwich Road because route 330 does not stop at the airport.
Suggested that the 330 route be modified to serve the airport as this would: • Not reduce local bus access to the airport for staff and passengers • Allow the route to use the bus stand at the airport to avoid building a new one near Connaught Bridge Roundabout • Provide a second bus route between Canning Town Station, providing greater resilience for the times when DLR is not running and passengers/staff need to use a bus to get to the airport.
Montagu Evans on behalf of Standard Life Investments (SLI) Responded in relation to the Gallions Reach Shopping Park which is managed by SLI, who have longer term aspirations for Gallions Reach Shopping Park to become a major town centre. Commented that the proposals for North East London do not propose changes to the existing services which serve Gallions Reach. Suggested that the proposal to run route 104 between Stratford and Beckton could be extended to run the route to Gallions Reach via Atlantis Avenue and Armada Way to provide a link to Gallions Reach Shopping Park.
4.5 Comments on the consultation 1476 respondents answered the question about the quality of the consultation and associated materials. 1038 respondents felt the quality of the consultation was good or very good, 319 thought it was acceptable, and 119 felt it was poor or very poor.
73 5. Next steps
Having carefully considered all of the consultation responses, as well as bus demand data, budgetary constraints and other transport information for these routes, we plan to proceed as follows. The changes taking place will be in line with the phased opening of the Elizabeth line or in response to wider bus network changes and subject to any necessary changes to highway infrastructure being made by the relevant highway authorities. A full customer communications campaign will be implemented in advance of any changes to let people know new journey options and frequencies.
West London Acton routes We will be going ahead with the changes put forward in the consultation for routes 266 and 391, and the introduction of night route N266 and new routes 218 and 306. Below is a summary of the frequencies and structures for the Acton area:
• Route 266 will run between Brent Cross and Acton, Town Hall and will no longer connect to Hammersmith during day service. Frequency will be reduced in frequency to every 10 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times, every 12 minutes during Sunday shopping hours and every 15 minutes during all evenings. It will no longer serve its current busiest section between Acton High Street, Askew Road and Hammersmith. However, the shorter route is expected to be more reliable. • Route N266 will run retain a direct service between Brent Cross and Hammersmith at night. It will continue to run every 30 minutes. • Route 391 will run between Richmond and Hammersmith, and no longer connect to Fulham Broadway and Sand’s End. It will be reduced in frequency to every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times, every 20 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. This is because it will no longer serve its current busiest section between Hammersmith and Fulham. However, the shorter route is expected to be more reliable. • New route 218 will run between North Acton and Hammersmith via West Acton, Acton High Street and Askew Road using single-deck buses. However, it will run every 12 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times rather than every 10 minutes and every 20 minutes during Sundays and evenings rather than every 15 minutes. • New route 306 will run between Acton Vale and Sand’s End (Fulham) via Askew Road, Hammersmith and Fulham Broadway using double-deck buses. It will run every 12 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times. However, it will run every 20 minutes during Sundays and evenings rather than every 15 minutes.
74 Between Acton Vale and Hammersmith, new routes 218 and 306 will be timed to provide a bus every 6 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times and every 10 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. Frequencies will be kept under review once the new routes have started running.
In addition, we will be making the changes consulted on to route 440 in the Acton and Park Royal areas. It would run along serve Acton Main Line station that is planned to be served by the Elizabeth line in 2019 rather than West Acton that would be served by new route 218 instead. At Park Royal, southbound route 440 buses would serve stop D instead of stop K. However, we will not be going ahead with the changes to the 440 in the Chiswick area at this time and have consulted separately on revised proposals to route 440 in Chiswick. Link: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/.
Ealing routes Below is a summary of changes to frequencies and structures for the Ealing area:
• We will be introducing changes to the routeing of route 427 as consulted on. It will run between Southall, Merrick Road and Uxbridge via Southall station (for the Elizabeth line once open) and no longer run to Acton via Ealing. It will also be reduced in frequency to every 10 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times and every 12 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. • We will not be reducing the frequency of route E1 at this time. We originally consulted on reducing it to run every 10 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times and every 12 minutes during Sundays at this time. No changes are proposed to the existing evening frequency of every 15 minutes. Frequency will be kept under review once the full Elizabeth line service has started in West London. • We will be reducing frequency on route E3 to run every 8 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times. It will continue to run every 10 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. • Route E10 will be converted to larger 60 capacity single deck buses as consulted on, but it will not be increased in frequency at this time. Frequency will be kept under review once the full Elizabeth line service has started in West London.
The Elizabeth line will run parallel to Uxbridge Road and Gordon Road among others and is expected to extract demand from bus services running along these corridors including routes 427 and E1. In particular, from passengers who are currently using buses to access rail services at Ealing Broadway, as West Ealing and Hanwell stations would gain direct rail links beyond Paddington to the West End and the City. All corridors would retain a high frequency service as it is expected there would still be strong demand to access local town centres and other local attractors.
75 We will not going ahead with the extension of route 112 between Ealing Broadway and Osterley, Tesco via South Ealing. After analysing stakeholder feedback and recent usage data on the existing route, it is no longer the best option to extend from Ealing Broadway. We will be consulting separately on revised proposals on a new service for this corridor in due course.
Many enhancements to bus services to support the Elizabeth line in Ealing have already been introduced over the past 2-3 years. These are:
• Converting routes E8 and E9 to double-deck buses. • Extending route E8 to create a new link to Isleworth and Hounslow town centre. • Introducing new route 483 replacing route 83 improving reliability and creating a new link to Harrow.
Southall routes Below is a summary of changes to frequencies and route structures for the Southall area:
• As noted above, we will be introducing changes to the routeing of route 427 as originally consulted on. • We will be delaying changes to routes 95, E5 and H32 until new roads are available at the Southall Waterside (Gasworks) site. This is not expected until after the Elizabeth line starts serving West London. A further update will be provided at a later date. • We will not be going ahead with the frequency increase of route 120. Frequency will be kept under review once the full Elizabeth line service has started in West London.
Changes to route 427 would create a new link from Hayes and Southall Broadway to Southall station for the Elizabeth line. It would also introduce a new service to Merrick Road where housing development is planned.
Hayes & Harlington, Heathrow Airport and West Drayton routes We will progress the changes put forward in the consultation for routes 140, 223, and 697, and introducing night service N140 and new route X140. We will also be introducing new route 278 but at a frequency of every 15 minutes rather than every 12 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times. On route 698, we will be withdrawing one rather than two return journeys. Below is a summary of the proposed restructures to routes:
• Route 140 will run between Hayes & Harlington station (for the Elizabeth line in 2019) and Harrow Weald, and will no longer run between Hayes & Harlington station and Heathrow Airport, Central Bus Station. It will be reduced in frequency to every 8 minutes during Monday to Saturday day
76 times and every 12 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. It will be partly replaced by routes 278 and X140. • Route 223 will no longer run between Northwick Park Hospital and Harrow Bus Station. Extra capacity will be added to meet peaks in demand during school start and ends time. Its main frequency will remain every 20 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times and every 30 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. • Route N140 will run unchanged every 30 minutes with an enhanced every 12 minutes service during early mornings on all nights of the week. • New route 278 will run between Ruislip station and Heathrow Airport, Central Bus Station replacing route 140 between Hayes & Harlington station and Heathrow Airport, Central Bus Station. However, it will run every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times rather than every 12 minutes as this will be sufficient to meet demand. It will run every 20 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. • New limited stop route X140 will run between Harrow Bus Station and Heathrow Airport, Central Bus Station via Hayes & Harlington station. It will run every 12 minutes during Monday to Saturday day times and every 15 minutes during Sundays and all evenings. • Route 697 will run with one less return journey as new route 278 will provide extra capacity between Ickenham and Hayes. • Route 698 will run with one less return journey as new route 278 would provide extra capacity between Ickenham and Hayes.
The above changes will better match capacity to demand along the existing route 140 corridor, and between Northwick Park Hospital and Harrow Bus Station. It will also introduce new and faster direct links to the Elizabeth line, Heathrow and Long Lane among other locations.
South East London We will go ahead with the changes as consulted on for routes 129, 161, 178, 291, 469, 472 and B11.
We will also be implementing the changes to route 180 and the introduction of route 301. However, following the consultation responses and further review, the changes to these routes will go ahead with the following alterations: • Route 180 will be run between Erith Quarry and North Greenwich, but will be rerouted between Charlton and North Greenwich via Bugsby’s Way instead of via Peartree Way
• Route 301 will be introduced between Bexleyheath and Woolwich. However it will use double deck buses and will run via Woolwich Road and New Road instead of via Knee Hill
77 At this time, we will not be going ahead with the conversion of route 244 to double deck operation. We will keep demand under review and if required we will introduce double deck buses on this route at a later date.
North East London We will proceed with the changes as consulted on for routes 25, 300, 330, and 474 (The night service on route 25 would be retained between Ilford and Oxford Circus, renumbered as route N25).
With regard to other routes consulted on, we will be making the following changes:
Route 104 – as consulted on, the route will be split into two overlapping routes numbered 104 and 304. However, route 304 will operate at a frequency of every 12 minutes, rather than every 10 minutes. New analysis of demand indicates this will be sufficient to meet demand while still providing a high frequency service. Route 241 – will be withdrawn from Hermit Road as consulted on and will terminate at Custom House station. The extension from Stratford City to Here East will not be introduced. Further analysis of demand between Stratford City and Here East suggests the 241 extension is not required for capacity purposes. Route 388 will continue to provide a high frequency link between Stratford City and Here East as will the shuttle bus operated by Here East. Route 115 – the proposed changes will not go ahead. Changes to the road are required to enable buses to operate along the new routeing. We have not received the necessary assurance that the highway authority is prepared to make these changes. Route 497 – it is currently expected to introduce this new service when the second stage of the Elizabeth line opens and when the Kings Park development is further progressed. Further consideration will be given to the frequency of the service and an announcement made nearer the time
Although not consulted upon, the consultation also referred to frequency increases on route 174 and double decking route 256. Both these schemes will be kept under review and demand on these routes will continue to be monitored.
78 Appendix A: Consultation materials
Email to bus passengers:
79 Stakeholder email:
From: TfL Consultations
Dear Stakeholder,
We’ve looked at how buses might serve the new Elizabeth line stations in West, South East and North East London.
The opening of the Elizabeth line from 2018 will further transform how people move about in London. The line will provide a key east-west link across London and beyond. Many people in inner and outer London will use a bus to get to and from the new service. We need to ensure that people can access the stations by bus in a simple and reliable way.
The Elizabeth line will make travelling across London much easier. That means bus passenger trips and demand will be different in the future as people make their way to different stations or use the train instead.
The areas and routes we have reviewed are as follows;
West London • Central Ealing routes 112, 427, E1 and E10
• Hayes, Heathrow and West Drayton routes 140, 223, 278, 697, 698, and X140
• Southall routes 95, 120, E5 & H32 (and 427)
• Acton routes 218, 266, 306, 391 and 440
South East London • Woolwich and Abbey Wood routes 129, 161, 178, 180, 244, 291, 301, 469, 472 and B11
North East London • Royal Docks/Custom House routes 104, 241, 300, 304, 330 and 474
• Harold Wood Romford routes 497, 174 and 256
• Inner North East London routes 25 and 115
Our proposals range in scale depending on the route to help us better match future demand with resources. We welcome your views on any or all of the details as set out on the following pages.
80 We have already posted information at bus stops about this consultation. We intend to send information packs ab out our proposals to local libraries. Those with registered oyster card holders who use one of the routes being consulted on will receive an email informing them about the consultation.
You can find out more information about all three consultations from our website at tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line
Yours faithfully,
Darek Podwiazka Consultation Team Transport for London
81 Example bus stop notice:
82 Appendix B: List of stakeholders consulted
London TravelWatch
Local Authorities London Borough of Ealing London Borough of Harrow London Borough of Hillingdon London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Barnet London Borough of Brent London Borough of Richmond London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough of Barking & Dagenham London Borough of Havering London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Lewisham Royal Borough of Greenwich
Elected Members Onkar Sahota AM Ealing and Hillingdon Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, and Tony Devenish AM City of Westminster Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, and Richmond Tony Arbour AM upon Thames Navin Shah AM Brent and Harrow Andrew Dismore AM Barnet and Camden City of London, Barking & Dagenham, Newham and Unmesh Desai AM Tower Hamlets Len Duvall AM Greenwich and Lewisham Gareth Bacon AM Bexley and Bromley Keith Prince AM Havering and Redbridge Caroline Pidgeon AM Londonwide (Transport Committee) Tom Copley AM Londonwide (Transport Committee) David Kurten AM Londonwide (Transport Committee) Caroline Russell AM Londonwide (Transport Committee) Shaun Bailey AM Londonwide (Transport Committee) Nicky Gavron AM Londonwide Andrew Boff AM Londonwide Sian Berry AM Londonwide Peter Whittle AM Londonwide Shaun Bailey AM Londonwide Fiona Twycross AM Londonwide Matthew Offord MP Hendon Mike Freer MP Finchley & Golders Green Theresa Villiers MP Chipping Barnet Barry Gardiner MP Brent North
83 Dawn Butler MP Brent Central Tulip Siddiq MP Hampstead & Kilburn Rupa Huq MP Ealing Central and Acton Stephen Pound MP Ealing North Virendra Sharma MP Ealing, Southall Andrew Slaughter MP Hammersmith Greg Hands MP Chelsea & Fulham Bob Blackman MP Harrow East Gareth Thomas MP Harrow West Nick Hurd MP Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner John McDonnell MP Hayes and Harlington Boris Johnson MP Uxbridge Ruth Cadbury MP Brentford & Isleworth Seema Malhotra MP Feltham & Heston Zac Goldsmith Richmond Park Sir Vice cable MP Twickenham Lyn Brown MP West Ham Stephen Timms MP East Ham Jim Fitzpatrick MP Poplar and Limehouse David Evennett MP Bexleyheath and Crayford James Brokenshire MP Old Bexley & Sidcup Teresa Pearce MP Erith and Thamesmead Clive Efford MP Eltham Matthew Pennycock MP Greenwich and Woolwich Teresa Pearce MP Erith and Thamesmead Heidi Alexander MP Lewisham East Jim Dowd MP Lewisham West and Penge Vicky Foxcroft MP Lewisham Deptford Cllr Daniel Crawford Acton Central Ealing Cllr Abdullah Gulaid Acton Central Ealing Cllr Patricia Walker Acton Central Ealing Cllr Lynne Murray Cleveland Ealing Cllr Ian Proud Cleveland Ealing Cllr David Rodgers Cleveland Ealing Cllr Tej Bagha Dormers Wells Ealing Cllr Tejinder Dhami Dormers Wells Ealing Cllr Ranjit Dheer Dormers Wells Ealing Cllr Seema Kumar Ealing Broadway Ealing Cllr Alex Stafford Ealing Broadway Ealing Cllr Anthony Young Ealing Broadway Ealing Cllr Jon Ball Ealing Common Ealing Cllr Joanna Dabrowska Ealing Common Ealing Cllr Roz Reece Ealing Common Ealing Cllr Katherine Crawford East Acton Ealing Cllr Kieron Gavan East Acton Ealing Cllr Hitesh Tailor East Acton Ealing Cllr Joanna Camadoo Elthorne Ealing Cllr Yoel Gordon Elthorne Ealing Cllr Peter Mason Elthorne Ealing
84 Cllr Julian Bell Greenford Broadway Ealing Cllr Harbhajan Kaur Greenford Broadway Ealing Cllr Tim Murtagh Greenford Broadway Ealing Cllr Joy Morrissey Hanger Hill Ealing Cllr Gregory Stafford Hanger Hill Ealing Cllr Nigel Sumner Hanger Hill Ealing Cllr Penny Jones Hobbayne Ealing Cllr Ciaran Mccartan Hobbayne Ealing Cllr Ray Wall Hobbayne Ealing Cllr Mohinder Midha Lady Margaret Ealing Cllr Karam Mohan Lady Margaret Ealing Cllr Swaran Padda Lady Margaret Ealing Cllr Theresa Byrne North Greenford Ealing Cllr Patrick Cogan North Greenford Ealing Cllr Shital Manro North Greenford Ealing Cllr Fabio Conti Northfield Ealing Cllr David Millican Northfield Ealing Cllr Theresa Mullins Northfield Ealing Cllr Natasha Ahmedshaikh Northolt Mandeville Ealing Cllr Steve Hynes Northolt Mandeville Ealing Cllr Chris Summers Northolt Mandeville Ealing Cllr Bassam Mahfouz Northolt West End Ealing Cllr Dee Martin Northolt West End Ealing Cllr Lauren Wall Northolt West End Ealing Cllr Mohammad Aslam Norwood Green Ealing Cllr Gurmit Mann Norwood Green Ealing Cllr Rajinder Mann Norwood Green Ealing Cllr Munir Ahmed Perivale Ealing Cllr Tariq Mahmood Perivale Ealing Cllr Charan Sharma Perivale Ealing Cllr Josh Blacker South Acton Ealing Cllr Yvonne Johnson South Acton Ealing Cllr Mik Sabiers South Acton Ealing Cllr Sarfraz Khan Southall Broadway Ealing Cllr Sanjai Kohli Southall Broadway Ealing Cllr Kamaljit Nagpal Southall Broadway Ealing Cllr Jasbir Anand Southall Green Ealing Cllr Kamaljit Dhindsa Southall Green Ealing Cllr Swarn Kang Southall Green Ealing Cllr Gary Busuttil Southfield Ealing Cllr Gary Malcolm Southfield Ealing Cllr Andrew Steed Southfield Ealing Cllr Paul Conlan Walpole Ealing Cllr Binda Rai Walpole Ealing
85 Cllr Gareth Shaw Walpole Ealing Cllr Kanwal Dheer Barnhill Hillingdon Cllr Jas Dhot Barnhill Hillingdon Cllr Tony Eginton Barnhill Hillingdon Cllr Janet Gardner Botwell Hillingdon Cllr Phoday Jarjussey Botwell Hillingdon Cllr Mo Khursheed Botwell Hillingdon Cllr Roy Chamdal Brunel Hillingdon
Cllr Richard Mills Brunel Hillingdon
Cllr Brian Stead Brunel Hillingdon Cllr Beulah East Charville Hillingdon Cllr Neil Fyfe Charville Hillingdon Cllr John Oswell Charville Hillingdon Cllr Manjit Khatra Heathrow Villages Hillingdon Cllr Peter Money Heathrow Villages Hillingdon Cllr June Nelson Heathrow Villages Hillingdon Cllr Wayne Bridges Hillingdon East Hillingdon Cllr Alan Chapman Hillingdon East Hillingdon Cllr Patricia Jackson Hillingdon East Hillingdon Cllr John Hensley Ickenham Hillingdon Cllr Raymond Puddifoot MBE Ickenham Hillingdon Cllr David Simmonds Cbe Ickenham Hillingdon Cllr Michael Markham Manor Hillingdon Cllr Douglas Mills Manor Hillingdon Cllr Susan O'Brien Manor Hillingdon Cllr Jazz Dhillon Pinkwell Hillingdon
Cllr Kuldeep Lakhmana Pinkwell Hillingdon Cllr John Morse Pinkwell Hillingdon
Cllr Lynne Allen Townfield Hillingdon
Cllr Peter Curling Townfield Hillingdon Cllr Robin Sansarpuri Townfield Hillingdon
Cllr George Cooper Uxbridge North Hillingdon
Cllr Raymond Graham Uxbridge North Hillingdon
Cllr David Yarrow Uxbridge North Hillingdon
Cllr Philip Corthorne Mcipd West Ruislip Hillingdon Cllr Brian Crowe West Ruislip Hillingdon Cllr John Riley West Ruislip Hillingdon
Cllr Mohinder Birah Yeading Hillingdon
Cllr Narinder Garg Yeading Hillingdon
Cllr Jagjit Singh Yeading Hillingdon Cllr Ghazanfar Ali Greenhill Harrow Cllr Sue Anderson Greenhill Harrow Cllr Keith Ferry Greenhill Harrow Cllr June Baxter Harrow on the Hill Harrow
86 Cllr Glen Hearnden Harrow on the Hill Harrow Cllr Barry Macleod-Cullinane Harrow on the Hill Harrow Cllr Ramji Chauhan Harrow Weald Harrow Cllr Stephen Greek Harrow Weald Harrow Cllr Pritesh Patel Harrow Weald Harrow Cllr Simon Brown Headstone South Harrow Cllr Pamela Fitzpatrick Headstone South Harrow Cllr Sasi Suresh Headstone South Harrow Cllr Ajay Maru Kenton West Harrow Cllr Vina Mithani Kenton West Harrow Cllr Kanti Rabadia Kenton West Harrow Cllr Varsha Parmar Marlborough Harrow Cllr David Perry Marlborough Harrow Cllr Antonio Weiss Marlborough Harrow Cllr Josephine Dooley Roxbourne Harrow Cllr Graham Henson Roxbourne Harrow Cllr Maxine Henson Roxbourne Harrow Cllr Margaret Davine Roxeth Harrow Cllr Jerry Miles Roxeth Harrow Cllr Primesh Patel Roxeth Harrow Cllr Phillip O'Dell Wealdstone Harrow Cllr Rekha Shah Wealdstone Harrow Cllr Anne Whitehead Wealdstone Harrow Cllr Kairul Kareema Marikar West Harrow Harrow Cllr Christine Robson West Harrow Harrow Cllr Adam Swersky West Harrow Harrow Cllr Mel Collins Brentford Hounslow Cllr Guy Lambert Brentford Hounslow Cllr Myra Savin Brentford Hounslow Cllr Gerald Mcgregor Chiswick Homefields Hounslow Cllr Robert Oulds Chiswick Homefields Hounslow Cllr John Todd Chiswick Homefields Hounslow Cllr Felicity Barwood Chiswick Riverside Hounslow Cllr Sam Hearn Chiswick Riverside Hounslow Cllr Paul Lynch Chiswick Riverside Hounslow Cllr Harleen Atwal Hear Heston Central Hounslow Cllr Manjit Singh Buttar Heston Central Hounslow Cllr Surinder Purewal Heston Central Hounslow Cllr Kamaljit Kaur Heston East Hounslow Cllr Gurmail Lal Heston East Hounslow Cllr Amritpal Mann Heston East Hounslow Cllr Lily Bath Heston West Hounslow Cllr Rajinder Bath Heston West Hounslow Cllr Shantanu Rajawat Heston West Hounslow
87 Cllr Ajmer Grewal Hounslow Central Hounslow Cllr Pritam Grewal Hounslow Central Hounslow Cllr Nisar Malik Hounslow Central Hounslow Cllr Bandna Chopra Hounslow West Hounslow Cllr Puneet Grewal Hounslow West Hounslow Cllr Jagdish Sharma Hounslow West Hounslow Cllr Peter De Vic Carey Osterley & Spring Grove Hounslow Cllr Tony Louki Osterley & Spring Grove Hounslow Cllr Sheila O'Reilly Osterley & Spring Grove Hounslow Cllr Steve Curran Syon Hounslow Cllr Theo Dennison Syon Hounslow Cllr Katherine Dunne Syon Hounslow Cllr Samantha Davies Turnham Green Hounslow Cllr Adrian Lee Turnham Green Hounslow Cllr Peter Thompson Turnham Green Hounslow Cllr Dean Cohen Golders Green Barnet Cllr Melvin Cohen Golders Green Barnet Cllr Reuben Thompstone Golders Green Barnet Cllr Devra Kay West Hendon Barnet Cllr Adam Langleben West Hendon Barnet Cllr Agnes Slocombe West Hendon Barnet Cllr Shafique Choudhary Barnhill Brent Cllr Sarah Marquis Barnhill Brent Cllr Michael Pavey Barnhill Brent Cllr Parvez Ahmed Dollis Hill Brent Cllr Liz Dixon Dollis Hill Brent Cllr Arshad Mahmood Dollis Hill Brent Cllr M Aslam Choudry Dudden Hill Brent Cllr Krupesh Hirani Dudden Hill Brent Cllr Janice Long Dudden Hill Brent Cllr Aisha Eniola Harlesden Brent Cllr Lloyd Mcleish Harlesden Brent Cllr Bobby Thomas Harlesden Brent Cllr Reg Colwill Kenton Brent Cllr Suresh Kansagra Kenton Brent Cllr Michael Maurice Kenton Brent Cllr Dr Helen Carr Mapesbury Brent Cllr Lia Colacicco Mapesbury Brent Cllr Ahmad Shahzad Mapesbury Brent Cllr Margaret Mclennan Northwick Park Brent Cllr Joshua Mitchell Murray Northwick Park Brent Cllr Keith Perrin Northwick Park Brent Cllr Matt Bradley Preston Brent Cllr Patricia Harrison Preston Brent
88 Cllr Jean Hossain Preston Brent Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi Stonebridge Brent Cllr Sabina Khan Stonebridge Brent Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala Stonebridge Brent Cllr Muhammed Butt Tokyngton Brent Cllr Orleen Hylton Tokyngton Brent Cllr Ketan Sheth Tokyngton Brent Cllr Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray Wembley Central Brent Cllr Krupa Sheth Wembley Central Brent Cllr Sam Stopp Wembley Central Brent Cllr Bernard Collier Willesden Green Brent Cllr Lesley Jones Willesden Green Brent Cllr Tom Miller Willesden Green Brent Cllr Meena Bond Kew Richmond Cllr Monica Horner Kew Richmond Cllr David Linnette Kew Richmond Cllr Lisa Blackmore North Richmond Richmond Cllr Margaret Butter North Richmond Richmond Cllr Stephen Speak North Richmond Richmond Cllr Peter Buckwell South Richmond Richmond Cllr Pamela Fleming South Richmond Richmond Cllr Thomas O'Malley South Richmond Richmond Hammersmith and Cllr Lisa Homan Askew Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Caroline Needham Askew Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Rory Vaughan Askew Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Joe Carlebach Avonmore & Brook Green Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Caroline Ffiske Avonmore & Brook Green Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr David Morton Avonmore & Brook Green Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Ben Coleman Fulham Broadway Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Alan De'ath Fulham Broadway Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Sharon Holder Fulham Broadway Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Michael Cartwright Hammersmith Broadway Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Stephen Cowan Hammersmith Broadway Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Pj Murphy Hammersmith Broadway Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Daryl Brown North End Fulham Cllr Larry Culhane North End Hammersmith and
89 Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Ali Hashem North End Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Nicholas Botterill Parsons Green & Walham Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Mark Loveday Parsons Green & Walham Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Frances Stainton Parsons Green & Walham Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Charlie Dewhirst Ravenscourt Park Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Lucy Ivimy Ravenscourt Park Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Harry Phibbs Ravenscourt Park Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Jacqueline Borland Sands End Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Steve Hamilton Sands End Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Jane Law Sands End Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Andrew Brown Town Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Viya Nsumbu Town Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Greg Smith Town Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Colin Aherne Wormholt & White City Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Sue Macmillan Wormholt & White City Fulham Hammersmith and Cllr Max Schmid Wormholt & White City Fulham Cllr Ayesha Chowdhury Beckton Newham Cllr David Christie Beckton Newham Cllr Tonii Wilson Beckton Newham Cllr Obaid Khan Boleyn Newham Cllr Veronica Oakeshott Boleyn Newham Cllr Harvinder Virdee Boleyn Newham Cllr Ann Easter Canning Town North Newham Cllr Clive Furness Canning Town North Newham Cllr Kay Scoresby Canning Town North Newham Cllr Bryan Collier Canning Town South Newham Cllr Alan Griffiths Canning Town South Newham Cllr Sheila Thomas Canning Town South Newham Cllr Rokhsana Fiaz Custom House Newham Cllr Patricia Holland Custom House Newham Cllr Conor Mcauley Custom House Newham Cllr Ian Corbett East Ham Central Newham Cllr Unmesh Desai East Ham Central Newham
90 Cllr Julianne Marriott East Ham Central Newham Cllr Zuber Gulamussen East Ham North Newham Cllr Firoza Nekiwala East Ham North Newham Cllr Paul Sathianesan East Ham North Newham Cllr Susan Masters East Ham South Newham Cllr Quintin Peppiatt East Ham South Newham Cllr Lakmini Shah East Ham South Newham Cllr Seyi Akiwowo Forest Gate North Newham Cllr Anamul Islam Forest Gate North Newham Cllr Rachel Tripp Forest Gate North Newham Cllr Mas Patel Forest Gate South Newham Cllr Winston Vaughan Forest Gate South Newham Cllr Dianne Walls Forest Gate South Newham Cllr Jose Alexander Green Street East Newham Cllr Mukesh Patel Green Street East Newham Cllr Rohima Rahman Green Street East Newham Cllr Hanif Abdulmuhit Green Street West Newham Cllr Idris Ibrahim Green Street West Newham Cllr Tahmina Rahman Green Street West Newham Cllr Andrew Baikie Little Ilford Newham Cllr Ken Clark Little Ilford Newham Cllr Farah Nazeer Little Ilford Newham Cllr Jo Corbett Manor Park Newham Cllr Salim Patel Manor Park Newham Cllr Amarjit Singh Manor Park Newham Cllr James Beckles Plaistow North Newham Cllr Joy Laguda Plaistow North Newham Cllr Forhad Hussain Plaistow North Newham Cllr Aleen Alarice Plaistow South Newham Cllr Ahmed Noor Plaistow South Newham Cllr Neil Wilson Plaistow South Newham Cllr Steve Brayshaw Royal Docks Newham Cllr Anthony Mcalmont Royal Docks Newham Cllr Patrick Murphy Royal Docks Newham Cllr Richard Crawford Stratford and New Town Newham Cllr Charlene Mclean Stratford and New Town Newham Cllr Terence Paul Stratford and New Town Newham Cllr Frances Clarke Wall End Newham Cllr Lester Hudson Wall End Newham Cllr Ted Sparrowhawk Wall End Newham Cllr Freda Bourne West Ham Newham Cllr John Gray West Ham Newham Cllr John Whitworth West Ham Newham Cllr Kevin Bonavia Blackheath Lewisham
91 Cllr Amanda De Ryk Blackheath Lewisham Cllr Gareth Siddorn Blackheath Lewisham Cllr Obajimi Adefiranye Brockley Lewisham Cllr John Coughlin Brockley Lewisham Cllr Sophie Mcgeevor Brockley Lewisham Cllr Bill Brown Ladywell Lewisham Cllr Carl Handley Ladywell Lewisham Cllr Liz Johnston-Franklin Ladywell Lewisham Cllr Simon Hooks Lee Green Lewisham Cllr Jim Mallory Lee Green Lewisham Cllr Pat Raven Lee Green Lewisham Cllr Damien Egan Lewisham Central Lewisham Cllr Stella Jeffrey Lewisham Central Lewisham Cllr Denise Hyland Abbey Wood Greenwich Cllr Clive Mardner Abbey Wood Greenwich Cllr Steve Offord Abbey Wood Greenwich Cllr Geoffrey Brighty Blackheath Westcombe Greenwich Cllr Paul Morrissey Blackheath Westcombe Greenwich Cllr Cherry Parker Blackheath Westcombe Greenwich Cllr Allan Maccarthy Charlton Greenwich Cllr Gary Parker Charlton Greenwich Cllr Miranda Williams Charlton Greenwich Cllr Tonia Ashikodi Glyndon Greenwich Cllr Don Austen Glyndon Greenwich Cllr Peter Brooks Glyndon Greenwich Cllr Mehboob Khan Greenwich West Greenwich Cllr Maureen O'Mara Greenwich West Greenwich Cllr Aidan Smith Greenwich West Greenwich Cllr Norman Adams Kidbrooke with Hornfair Greenwich Cllr Christine Grice Kidbrooke with Hornfair Greenwich Cllr David Stanley Kidbrooke with Hornfair Greenwich Cllr Mark James Middle Park and Sutcliffe Greenwich Cllr Stephen Brain Peninsula Greenwich Cllr Chris Lloyd Peninsula Greenwich Cllr Denise Scott-Mcdonald Peninsula Greenwich Cllr Angela Cornforth Plumstead Greenwich Cllr Matthew Morrow Plumstead Greenwich Cllr Rajinder Sehmar Plumstead Greenwich Cllr Chris Kirby Shooters Hill Greenwich Cllr Sarah Merrill Shooters Hill Greenwich Cllr Danny Thorpe Shooters Hill Greenwich Cllr Olu Babatola Thamesmead Moorings Greenwich Cllr Sizwe James Thamesmead Moorings Greenwich Cllr Averil Lekau Thamesmead Moorings Greenwich Cllr David Gardner Woolwich Common Greenwich
92 Cllr Ambreen Hisbani Woolwich Common Greenwich Cllr Harpinder Singh Woolwich Common Greenwich Cllr Barbara Barwick Woolwich Riverside Greenwich Cllr John Fahy Woolwich Riverside Greenwich Cllr Jackie Smith Woolwich Riverside Greenwich Cllr David Hurt Barnehurst Bexley Cllr Eileen Pallen Barnehurst Bexley Cllr Daniel Francis Belvedere Bexley Cllr Gill Macdonald Belvedere Bexley Cllr Sean Newman Belvedere Bexley Cllr Sybil Camsey Brampton Bexley Cllr Teresa O'Neill OBE Brampton Bexley Cllr John Wilkinson Brampton Bexley Cllr Roy Ashmole Christchurch Bexley Cllr Brad Smith Christchurch Bexley Cllr Brian Bishop Colyers Bexley Cllr Maxine Fothergill Colyers Bexley Cllr Colin Mcgannon Colyers Bexley Cllr Christine Catterall East Wickham Bexley Cllr James Hunt East Wickham Bexley Cllr Cafer Munur East Wickham Bexley Cllr Edward Boateng Erith Bexley Cllr Joe Ferreira Erith Bexley Cllr Abena Oppong-Asare Erith Bexley Cllr Esther Amaning Lesnes Abbey Bexley Cllr Danny Hackett Lesnes Abbey Bexley Cllr John Husband Lesnes Abbey Bexley Cllr Philip Read Northumberland Heath Bexley Cllr Peter Reader Northumberland Heath Bexley Cllr Melvin Seymour Northumberland Heath Bexley Cllr Chris Beazley St Michael's Bexley Cllr Caroline Newton St Michael's Bexley Cllr Ray Sams St Michael's Bexley Cllr Derry Begho Thamesmead East Bexley Cllr Endy Ezenwata Thamesmead East Bexley Cllr Mabel Ogundayo Thamesmead East Bexley
Police, Emergency Services and Health Authorities Metropolitan Police Service London Fire Brigade London Ambulance Service North West London Hospitals NHS Trust Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet NHS Care Commissioning Group Hounslow NHS Care Commissioning Group
93 Newham NHS Care Commissioning Group Bexley NHS Care Commissioning Group Greenwich NHS Care Commissioning Group Barnet Safer Transport Team Brent Safer Transport Team Ealing Safer Transport Team Hammersmith & Fulham Safer Transport Team Harrow Safer Transport Team Hillingdon Safer Transport Team Hounslow Safer Transport Team Richmond Safer Transport Team Bexley Safer Transport Team Greenwich Safer Transport Team Lewisham Safer Transport Team Havering Safer Transport Team Newham Safer Transport Team Redbridge Safer Transport Team
Transport Groups Association of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Drivers British Motorcyclists Federation Confederation of Passenger Transport Cycling UK Freight Transport Association Green Flag Group Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Living Streets London Cab Drivers Club London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA) London Councils London Cycling Campaign London Suburban Taxi-Drivers Coalition Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association Road Haulage Association Sustrans The AA East Finchley Bus Watch Brent Community Transport Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Group Ealing Community Transport Hounslow Community Transport Group Richmond and Kingston Accessible Transport East Community Transport Bexley Community Transport Scheme (BATS) Eltham Public Transport Group Charlton Rail User Group
Local Interest Groups/Stakeholders
94 Medway Estate Residents' Forum West Twyford Residents' Association Ealing Civic Society West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society Barnes Community Association Strawberry Hill Neighbourhood Association Twickenham Park Residents' Association (TPRA) Raynes Park & West Barnes Residents' Association Manor Grove Residents Association. Richmond London Wetland Centre, Richmond Brampton Manor Academy Belvedere Community Forum Chobham Academy Cumberland School East London Science School Eastlea Community School Forest Gate Community School Kingsford Community School Langdon Academy Lister Community School Little Ilford School Oasis Academy Silvertown Plashet School Rokeby School The Royal Docks Community School St Angela's Ursuline School St Bonaventure's Catholic School Sarah Bonnell School School 21 Stratford School Altmore Infant School Avenue Primary School Brampton Primary School Britannia Village Primary School Calverton Primary School Carpenters Primary School Central Park Primary School Chobham Academy Cleves Primary School Curwen Primary School Drew Primary School Ellen Wilkinson Primary School Elmhurst Primary School Essex Primary School Gallions Primary School Godwin Junior School Grange Primary School Hallsville Primary School Hartley Primary School Kaizen Primary School Keir Hardie Primary School Kensington Primary School Langdon Academy
95 Lathom Junior School Manor Primary School Maryland Primary School Monega Primary School Nelson Primary School New City Primary School North Beckton Primary School Odessa Infant School Park Primary School Plaistow Primary School Portway Primary School Ranelagh Primary School Ravenscroft Primary School Roman Road Primary School Rosetta Primary School St Antony's RC Primary School St Edward's RC Primary School St Francis' RC Primary School St Helen's RC Primary School St James' CE Junior School St Joachim's RC Primary School St Luke's CE Primary School St Michael's RC Primary School St Stephen's Primary School St Winefride's RC Primary School Salisbury Primary School Sandringham Primary School School 21 Scott Wilkie Primary School Selwyn Primary School Shaftesbury Primary School Sheringham Primary School Sir John Heron Primary School Southern Road Primary School Star Primary School Tollgate Primary School Upton Cross Primary School Vicarage Primary School West Ham CE Primary School William Davies Primary School Winsor Primary School Woodgrange Infant School Business Academy Bexley Trinity C of E school Bexleyheath Academy St Catherine's Catholic School Thomas Tallis School Plumstead Manor School Royal Greenwich Trust School St Paul's Academy Woolwich Polytechnic School Prendergast Vale School Hawksmoor Primary School
96 Windrush Primary School Bishop John Robinson School St Margaret Clitherow School Castilion Primary School Linton Mead Primary School Willow Bank Primary School Woodside School St Thomas More Pelham Primary School Yarnton Way Nursery Waterways Community Childrens Centre The Croft Day Nursery New Vic 6th Form College Here East ExCel Centre Rising Stars Daycare Newham College Newham University Hospital Docklands Equestrian Centre West Ham Parish Church Ramgarhia Sikh Gurdwara Temple SKS Swaminarayan Temple East London Memorial Community Church St Margarets Church ASCENSION CHURCH St Mark's Community Centre East London Gymnastics Centre Woodgrange Baptist Church Minhaj-ul-Quran International Manor Park Christian Centre Alphabet House Nursery School RCCG Christ Chapel For All Nations Nurtureville Nursery Royal Docks Learning & Activity Centre Albert Road Surgery Belvedere Clinic Abbey Wood Dental Thamesmead Health Centre Abbey Wood Community Group Birchmere Community Hub The Link Thamesmead Belvedere Community Centre Erith Health Centre St John the Baptist Church East Greenwich Residents Association South Greenwich Forum Ian Blore (EGRA) Chris Ward (Ashburton Triangle Association) Erith Townn Forum Belvedere Community Forum This is Belvedere From the Murky Depths (SE London blog) 853 (Greenwich blog)
97 The Blackheath Society The Westcombe Society Greenwich Pensioners Forum
Accessibility Groups Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Age Concern London Age UK Alzheimer’s Society Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Better Transport Campaign for Better Transport Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee GLA Strategy Access Panel Greater London Forum for the Elderly Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit London Older People’s Strategy Group MIND National Autistic Society National Children’s Bureau RNIB Sense Sixty Plus Stroke Association The British Dyslexia Association
Other Stakeholders BT Canal & River Trust London EDF Energy ICE - London National Grid Royal Mail Thames Water
98 Appendix C: Consultation questions
Questions about our proposals
West London
Q1. How often do you use these bus routes? 95, 112, 120, 140, 222, 223, 266, 427, 697, 698, E1, E3, E5, E10, H32, H98
1. Daily/nightly 2. 2-3 times a week 3. Once a week 4. 1-2 times a month 5. Rarely 6. Never
Q2. What do you think of our proposals to change the route of both the 95 and E5 in the Dormers Wells area, and to extend the 95 to the new Southall Waterside High Street?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q3. At the moment route 112 starts and finishes at Ealing Broadway, Haven Green. What do you think about our proposal to extend buses to Osterley Tesco via South Ealing, creating many new connections including between Gillette Corner and the Elizabeth line at Ealing Broadway station?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
99 Q4. What do you think of our proposal to withdraw route 140 between Hayes & Harlington station and Heathrow, and reduce daytime frequencies from every 6-7 minutes to every 8 minutes?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q5. What do you think of our proposal to introduce new limited stop route X140 between Harrow Bus Station and Heathrow Airport?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q6. What do you think? The night service on route 140 would be renumbered N140 and run between Heathrow Airport, Central Bus Station and Harrow Weald
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q7. What do you think of our proposal to introduce a new single deck route (numbered 218) running every 10 minutes between North Acton station and Hammersmith serving West Acton and Acton Central?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
100
Q8. What do you think of our proposal to withdraw route 223 between Harrow Bus Station and Northwick Park Hospital? There is excess capacity on this corridor and passengers can change to routes 114, 182, 183, 186, 483, H9/H10, H14 or H18/H19 to continue their journey.
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q9. What do you think of our proposal to introduce new route 218 between Hammersmith and North Acton and run route 266 between Acton Town Hall and Brent Cross Shopping Centre, providing sufficient capacity and improved reliability along this corridor?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q10. What do you think of our proposal to retain the current 266 structure for the night service, which will be renamed N266?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q11. What do you think of our proposal to introduce new route 278 between Heathrow Airport, Central Bus Station and Ruislip Station, serving Hayes & Harlington and Hillingdon?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose
101 • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q12. At the moment route 427 starts and finishes at Acton Town Hall. What do you think of our proposal to reroute buses to Southall, Elizabeth line station and reduce the frequency from every 8 minutes to every 10 minutes? The current route’s busiest points will be covered by new route 278.
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q13. What do you think of our proposal to reroute the 440 along Horn Lane and Chiswick High Road?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q14. What do you think of our proposal to extend the H32 to Hayes & Harlington Station via the new developments at Southall Waterside?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
South East London
Q1. How often do you use these bus routes? 129, 161, 178, 180, 244, 291, 469, 472, N472, B11
102 • Daily/nightly • 2-3 times a week • Once a week • 1-2 times a month • Rarely • Never
Q2. At the moment route 161 runs via Beresford Street in Woolwich (towards North Greenwich only). This will no longer be possible following the introduction of improved pedestrian crossing facilities on Woolwich Road for the new station. What do you think of our proposal to run it via Wellington Street instead (towards North Greenwich only)?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q3. What do you think of our proposal to convert routes 178, 244 and 291 from single deck to double deck operation?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q4. What do you think of our proposals to reroute the 180 to North Greenwich and to extend the route from Belvedere industrial area to Erith Quarry? Route 129 would be extended to Lewisham (from its current terminus at Greenwich town centre) to maintain connections. [add map in fact bank]
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
103 Q5. What do you think of our proposal to introduce a new bus route, numbered 301, between Bexleyheath and Woolwich Town Centre, serving Abbey Wood and, Thamesmead? [add map in fact bank]
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q6. Route 469 currently serves Abbey Road between Abbey Wood and Belvedere. What do you think of our proposal to divert the 469 at Picardy Manorway to provide better connections to Abbey Wood Elizabeth line station for people in the Picardy Road, Woolwich Road and New Road area? [add map in fact bank]
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q7. What do you think of our proposal to extend the 472 from Thamesmead Town Centre to Abbey Wood and reduce frequencies on the route?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q8. At the moment route B11 runs every 15 minutes and starts and finishes at Thamesmead Town Centre. What do you think of our proposal to reduce frequencies to every 20 minutes and curtail the route to South Thamesmead, Yarnton Way to improve reliability and better match capacity with demand following the introduction of route 301?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose
104 • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
North East London
Q1. How often do you use these bus routes?
104, 241, 300, 330, 474 a. Daily/nightly b. 2-3 times a week c. Once a week d. 1-2 times a month e. Rarely f. Never
Q2. At the moment route 104 runs between Stratford Bus Station and Manor Park Station. What do you think of our proposal to introduce route 304 between Manor Park and Custom House and run route 104 between Stratford and Beckton providing better connections and improved reliability? [add map in fact bank]
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q3. What do you think of our proposal to re-route the 300 via Tollgate Road, Prince Regent Lane, Victoria Dock Road, Custom House, Freemason’s Road, New Barn Street and Barking Road, providing better connections to Custom House Elizabeth line station? [add map in fact bank]
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
105 Q4. Route 241 - let us know what you think of our proposals to extend the 241 from Stratford City bus station to East Wick, Here East and withdraw the 241 between Canning Town, Hermit Road and Custom House (this would be delivered in tandem with the following proposal – reroute the 474 between London City Airport and Canning Town in both directions. Westbound it would run via Connaught Bridge, Victoria Dock Road, Munday Road, Radland Road, Tarling Road and Jude Street to Silvertown Way. Eastbound it would run via Silvertown Way, Hallsville Road, Ruscoe Road, Rogers Road, Tarling Road, Appleby Road, Munday Road, Victoria Dock Road, Connaught Bridge to London City Airport).
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q5. Route 330 - let us know what you think of our proposals to extend the 330 from Canning Town bus station to Silvertown plus extend the 330 beyond Silvertown to Custom House station via Connaught Bridge and Victoria Dock Road.
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q6. Route 474 - let us know what you think of our porposals to reroute the 474 eastbound only between Albert Road and Pier Road (North Woolwich Ferry). It would operate from Albert Road via Factory Road, Store Road and Pier Road, returning to Albert Road. An existing bus stop on Albert Road would not be served. Also reroute the 474 between London City Airport and Canning Town in both directions. Westbound it would run via Connaught Bridge, Victoria Dock Road, Munday Road, Radland Road, Tarling Road and Jude Street to Silvertown Way. Eastbound it would run via Silvertown Way, Hallsville Road, Ruscoe Road, Rogers Road, Tarling Road, Appleby Road, Munday Road, Victoria Dock Road, Connaught Bridge to London City Airport.
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose
106 • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q7 What do you think of our proposals to introduce new Route 497 to serve the new Harold Wood Hospital development
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q8 What do you think of our proposals to reroute the 115
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Q9. Which option for the 115 rerouteing would you prefer? (tick box Option 1 and 2)
Q10 What do you think our proposals for route 25?
Component/choices • Strongly support • Support • Neither support or oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose • Not sure Free text box for comments
Questions about the respondent
All questions were optional:
What is your name?
What is your email address?
107 Please provide us with your postcode:
Are you (please tick all boxes that apply): • A local resident • A local business owner • Employed locally • A visitor to the area • A commuter to the area • Not local but interested in the scheme • A taxi/private hire vehicle driver • Other (please specify) [Single line text]
If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with a name
How did you find out about this consultation?
• Received an email from TfL • Received a letter from TfL • Read about it in the press • Saw it on the TfL website • Social media • Word of mouth • Other (please specify) [Single line text]
What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.) • Very good • Good • Acceptable • Poor • Very poor
Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?
Equality Monitoring Please tell us about yourself in this section. All information will be kept confidential and used for analysis purposes only. We are asking these questions to ensure our consultations reach all sections of the community and to improve the effectiveness of the way we communicate with our customers. You do not have to provide any personal information if you don’t want to.
Gender: Male
108 Female Transgender female Transgender male Prefer not to say
Ethnic Group: Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi Asian or Asian British – Chinese Asian or Asian British – Indian Asian or Asian British – Other Asian or Asian British – Pakistani Black or Black British – African Black or Black British – Caribbean Black or Black British – Other Mixed – Other Mixed – White and Asian Mixed – White and Black African Mixed – White and Caribbean Other Ethnic Group Other Ethnic Group – Arab Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish Other Ethnic Group – Latin American Other Ethnic Group – Turkish White – British White – Irish White – Other Prefer not to say
Age: Under 15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71+ Prefer not to say
Sexual Orientation: Bisexual Man Bisexual Woman Gay Man Heterosexual Man Heterosexual Woman
109 Lesbian Other Prefer not to say
Faith: Buddhist Christian Hindu Muslim Sikh Jewish Other None Prefer not to say
Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes No Prefer not to say
If you answered "Yes" to the above question, please indicate below the main barriers you currently face as a result of your disability Physical or Environmental Barriers Information & Communication Barriers Organisational Barriers Attitude Barriers Other Barriers Not Applicable Prefer not to say
110
111