Consultation on possible changes to routes 206, 224 and PR2 Summary of responses September 2011 Contents Section Page 1 Introduction 3 2 The consultation 3 3 Responses from members of the public 5 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other 10 stakeholders Appendices A Copy of the consultation letter 13 B St Raphael’s Estate letter drop 17 C List of stakeholders consulted 18 2 1. Introduction The bus network is under regular review. Services in and around Park Royal and Wembley have been reviewed and a number of changes are proposed. • Route 206 would be diverted at Brent Park to Wembley Park and The Paddocks. • Route 224 would be diverted at Harlesden Station to Brentfield Road and the St Raphael’s Estate. • Route PR2 would be withdrawn. These proposals were designed to support continued provision of a comprehensive transport network, taking account of current usage and plans for development in the area. 2. The consultation 2.1 About the consultation: Stakeholder and public consultation on the proposals took place between 11 July and 19 August 2011. The key benefits of the proposals are: • More frequent service for many users with higher capacity in and around Wembley Park, the St Raphael’s Estate and Brentfield Road. • A more direct link between St Raphael’s and central Park Royal. • Introducing new Sunday services. • Better links to other modes of transport. Some direct links in the current network would no longer be provided. TfL asked the following questions: • What modes of transport do you use? • If you use buses, what are the main reasons for using them? • Please let us know what bus routes you take and how often? • Do you support the proposed changes to route PR2? • Do you support the proposed changes to route 206? • Do you support the proposed changed to route 224? • Do you think you would use public transport more or less if the changes went ahead? • Please let us know any further comments or suggestions you may have regarding these proposals. 3 2.2 Who we consulted The public consultation was intended to seek the views of people who lived near to the proposed route, current users of the service and potential users. We also consulted stakeholders including the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Harrow, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix C and a summary of their responses is in section 4. 2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity Website Content from the leaflet was displayed on the TfL website, along with an online form allowing users to respond to the questions and submit additional comments. Bus Stops The consultation was advertised at bus stops along the routes. Press Advertisements were published in the local press Letter A letter was distributed to addresses in the St Raphael’s Estate. People could respond by letter, telephone, textphone, email or web. Braille, audio and large font versions of the consultation material were available, as was a translation service to other languages. 4 3. Responses from members of the public We asked seven consultation questions and invited respondents to add further comments. There were 573 public responses to the consultation, not all respondents chose to answer all of the questions. 19 responded by post, 548 responded online, four responded via email, and two responded via the TfL Call Centre. Responses are summarised below. 3.1 Public consultation results Q1. What modes of transport do you use? 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Bus Train Tube Cycle Walk Car Q2. If you use buses, what are the main reasons for using them? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Going to Shopping Social Medical Connect to other work/school/other appointments transport modes education 5 Q3. Please let us know what bus routes you take and how often? 200 180 160 140 120 Daily 100 Weekly 80 Monthly 60 Never 40 20 0 PR2 206 223 204 Q4 – 6. Do you support the proposed changes to route PR2/206/224? 450 400 350 300 250 Yes 200 No Does Not Affect Me 150 100 50 0 PR2 206 224 6 Q7 Do you think you would use public transport more or less if the changes went ahead? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 More Less No Change Reasons for supporting the scheme: Reasons given for supporting the change can be seen in the table below: Reason Total Service will provide better access for users of the Swaminarayan Temple 24 Having two buses running on Sundays and bank holidays will be beneficial 7 Proposals take into account passenger safety 5 Changes will improve the link between Harlesden Station and Brentfield Road 4 Good that there is another route around Wembley 3 Routes should not serve St Raphael’s Estate 2 7 Reasons for opposing the scheme: Reasons given for opposing the change can be seen in the table below: Reason Total Routes should serve St Raphael’s Estate 22 PR2 is the only direct link to Central Middlesex Hospital 18 Proposals will result in an increase in fares 15 Will be difficult for the elderly to get around 10 PR2 should run 7 days a week 9 Hillside will be underserved if PR2 is removed 9 Shouldn’t remove any links through Willesden Junction Station 7 Changes are not good for the community 7 Longer journeys for the community 7 206 is a direct link to IKEA 6 Accessibility to the temple will be reduced 3 Routes serve several train/tube stations 2 Employees of nearby industrial estates will be negatively affected 1 TfL cutting services to save money 1 8 3.3 Other Suggestions Some respondents suggested changes to the proposal or took the opportunity to re-iterate their concerns and also comment more widely about the service. Issue Total There should be a higher frequency of bus services 41 Route(s) should be extended to Kingsbury 12 Waiting times are too high 7 Route(s) should serve Stonebridge Park Station 6 Bigger buses should be used 5 Routes should serve The Paddocks 5 24 hour bus service would be beneficial 3 Brentfield Road should be hail and ride 2 Route 206 should have a traditional timetabled schedule (i.e. not a bus will arrive every 10-15 minutes) 1 Bus route 440 should be extended to Wembley Arena 1 9 4. Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders TfL had nine responses from Stakeholders and these are summarised below: The London Borough of Brent Brent officers stated that the changes represent an improvement in a number of respects. It would also provide links from the south of Brent to the new Civic Centre. A further extension of route 206 northwards to Queensbury was suggested (or route 305 extended southwards from Queensbury). There are concerns that Hillside in Stonebridge would lose its direct link to both Central Middlesex Hospital and Brent Park. Could route 223 be extended to Northwick Park Hospital and Harrow from North Wembley to allow passengers to make a direct journey? Councillor Daniel Brown – London Borough of Brent Could route 440 be extended from Stonebridge via Harrow Rd and Brentfield Road to avoid the loss of service from Stonebridge Park/Harrow Road to Brent Park Tesco’s. Other than that these are reasonable proposals Caroline Pidgeon – London Assembly Member Could route 223 be extended to Northwick Park as this will improve access to the local hospital for many people in the Wembley/Sudbury area. Navin Shah – London Assembly Member The increase in capacity and frequency for passengers in the Wembley area is welcome. It would be beneficial for local residents if the 206 could be extended to terminate at Queensbury Station to give an easier link to Central Middlesex Hospital. Route 223 is shown on the map along Empire Way instead of Wembley Park Drive. Residents currently use this route as a quick way to get from Preston Road to Wembley Central but the proposed changes will lengthen the journey time. Furthermore, a number of buses already serve Empire Way. Barry Gardiner – Member of Parliament for Brent North On behalf of the Chairman at BAPS Swaminarayan Mandir Temple, the temple and the devotees are quite supportive of the changes. However, could route 206 be extended to Queensbury Station, or at least at the Kingsbury roundabout. This will benefit devotees as well as residents, who travel to Central Middlesex Hospital and other local amenities. The London Borough of Ealing LB Ealing officers have no objection to the proposals. If the proposals are implemented, they should be closely monitored and reviewed regularly. Councillor Zaffar Van Kalwala – London Borough of Brent These changes are an improvement on the present arrangements, particularly with regard to improving links to the borough’s new Civic Centre and surrounding developments. However, there are some reservations. 10 The Swaminarayan Temple on Brentfield Road attracts a great number of worshippers and tourists. A significant number live in the north of the borough (Kingsbury area). The temple is also a ‘London Landmark’ for the London 2012 Olympics. Could route 206 be further extended to terminate at ideally Queensbury Station or the Kingsbury roundabout. Or could route 305 be extended from its present terminus at Kingsbury Circle to Central Middlesex Hospital, along Fryent Way and The Paddocks, Wembley Park, Great Central Way and Brentfield Road. North West London Hospitals Trust – NHS The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust is responsible for Central Middlesex and Northwick Park Hospitals and encourages staff, patients and visitors to use public transport, cycling, walking and car sharing whenever possible.