1

Consultation on possible changes to bus route 462 Consultation Report October 2015

2

3

Consultation on possible changes to bus route 462 Consultation Report

1

Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2

2 The consultation ........................................................................................................................ 3

3 Responses from members of the public ................................................................................. 4

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ................................................... 7

Appendix A - Copy of the consultation letter, maps, and CRM email .......................................... 8

Appendix B – Letter distribution area ........................................................................................... 15

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted .............................................................................. 16

2

1 Introduction

We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about a proposal to alter route 462 in the Fairlop area. The consultation took place between 6 February and 20 March 2015. Following a request from the London Borough of Redbridge we reviewed the possibility of providing a bus service along Forest Road in Fairlop, which is not served by a bus route at present. As a consequence we proposed to change route 462 to meet this request, which would bring some local residents closer to the local bus network and provide new direct links to the leisure facilities along Forest Road. Route 462 currently operates between Ilford and Hainault, The Lowe. We proposed to re-route the 462 from Fullwell Cross via Forest Road, Elmbridge Road, The Lowe, Manford Way, Manor Road, Fencepiece Road, Limes Avenue and Copperfield to a new terminus at the southern end of the Limes Farm Estate. On the return journey to Ilford, the route would continue clockwise from the southern end of the Limes Farm Estate via Limes Avenue, Fencepiece Road, Manor Road, Manford Way, The Lowe, Elmbridge Road, Forest Road to Fullwell Cross and the existing line of route. The service would still run at the same frequencies as now, with buses about every 15 minutes during the day Monday to Saturday and every 30 minutes each evening and Sundays. The proposal would mean that journey times between Fullwell Cross and Hainault would be reduced, although it will take longer to travel between Fullwell Cross and Grange Hill and the Limes Farm Estate. Following the proposed change, route 462 would no longer serve Fencepiece Road between Fullwell Cross and Limes Avenue. Passengers will still be able to use route 167 to travel along this section of Fencepiece Road, as well as routes 150 and 247 between Fullwell Cross and New North Road. We also proposed to install new bus stops, with hard standing where necessary, on Forest Road and Elmbridge Road. The locations were are as follows: Westbound outside King Solomon High School (bus stop only). Eastbound outside Fairlop Tube Station (bus stop only). Westbound opposite Fairlop Tube Station (bus stop only). Eastbound 60m east and opposite the entrance to Fairlop Waters (bus stop

only). Westbound 50m west of the entrance to Fairlop Waters (bus stop and shelter). Eastbound 30m west and opposite the entrance to Fairlop Waters Country Park

(bus stop only). Westbound 30m east of the entrance to Fairlop Waters Country Park (bus stop

and shelter). Northbound 45m south and opposite the Gardens of Peace cemetery entrance

(bus stop and shelter). Southbound 30m south of the Gardens of Peace cemetery entrance (bus stop

and shelter).

3

All existing bus stops on Manor Road and Manford Way would continue to be served. A new bus stand and shelter (with toilet facilities for drivers) would also be required at the southern end of the Limes Farm Estate, just to the west of the junction with Amanda Close. Passengers would be able to get on or off the bus at the stand. A new zebra crossing is planned to be installed outside Fairlop Underground station. This report explains the background to the proposal, the consultation and summarises the responses. It will contribute to the decision on whether to go ahead with this proposed change or not.

2 The consultation

The consultation was designed to enable TfL to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to route 462. The potential outcomes of the consultation are: We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from

proceeding with the scheme as originally planned. We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation. We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation.

2.1 Consultation objectives The objectives of the consultation were: To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the

proposals and allow them to respond To understand the level of support or opposition for the change To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not

previously aware To understand concerns and objections To allow respondents to make suggestions.

2.2 Who we consulted

The consultation intended to seek the views of people who use the bus routes involved and those who might potentially use the service. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, 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 given in Section 4.

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

The consultation was published online. The dedicated webpage explained the background to the proposal. We invited people to respond by answering a number of questions and leaving comments. We raised awareness of the consultation by sending an email to approximately 13,000 registered Oyster Card holders who have used route 462, and to key stakeholders. We also wrote to approximately 8,500 local residents and businesses. Copies of the consultation materials are shown in Appendix A.

4

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

3 Responses from members of the public We received 539 responses from members of the public. There were 522 responses via our website, and 17 received via email or letter. We asked members of the public how they found out about the consultation.

EmailSocialmedia

Other Letter PressTfL

websiteNo

answerTotal

No of replies 265 79 69 60 24 14 28 539

% of total 49 15 13 11 4 3 5 100

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

Q5. How did you hear about this consultation?

5

3.1 Public consultation results To help us understand more about who replied and their thoughts on the route and proposal, we asked a number of questions; We asked respondents whether they currently use route 462.

Respondents were asked to give us their views on our proposals for route 462.

Yes NoNot

answeredTotal

No. of replies 321 205 13 539

% of total 60 38 2 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350Q6. Do you currently use route 462?

Yes No PartiallyNotsure

Noopinion

Noanswer

Total

Number of replies 358 112 56 6 2 5 539

% of total 66 21 10 1 0 1 100

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Q7. Are you in favour of our proposals for route 462?

6

The final question asked if respondents had any further views on the proposals for route 462. There were 531 additional comments (positive and negative) and suggestions in response to this question. The tables below summarise the views and suggestions made. A separate document will respond to the main points raised by respondents.

Generally supportive Support the proposed change 104 Will improve access to facilities on Forest Road 86 Will improve access to Fairlop Station 35 Will improve access to Gardens of Peace Cemetery 22 Will reduce car use 11 Will improve access for students 6

Generally opposed Makes it difficult for people travelling to/from Fencepiece Road 34 Buses will make traffic congestion on Forest Road worse 34 Will be inconvenient for residents of Limes Farm Estate 32 Increases journey time 25 Makes it harder to access local facilities (doctors etc) 18 There is little demand for a bus service on Forest Road 14 Inconvenient generally 11 Elmbridge Road is not wide enough for buses 7 Opposed to bus stand/driver's facilities on Limes Avenue 4 Some passengers would have to pay twice 2 Generally opposed to proposal 2

Connected comments/alternatives Route 462 should be extended to serve Hainault Business Park, Forest Park Cemetery and Redbridge Cycling Centre

22

Concern about locations of bus stops 14 Frequency/capacity of route 167 will need to be increased 14 Route 462: other alternative routeing suggestions 11 Extend route 462 to King George Hospital 6 Extend route 362 to Barkingside via Fencepiece Road 5 Reroute the 150 or 247 to serve Forest Road instead 5 Increase frequency/capacity of route 462 5 Terminate route 462 at Grange Hill Station 2

Other comments/suggestions Additional parking restrictions are required on Forest Road 24 General bus operation/route issues 9

7

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders We received seven responses from stakeholders. These responses are summarised below.

Aldborough Hatch Defence Association Supports the proposal.

Hainault Business Improvement District 2006/16 Supports the proposal as it will improve access to Fairlop station. Barkingside 21 Supports the proposal. London Playing Fields Foundation Supports the proposal. However has concerns about the location of the proposed bus stop, and would like the bus stop closer to the London Marathon Playing Field Redbridge, the Fairlop Oak Playing Field and the businesses and residences nearby. Redbridge Youth Parliament Supports the proposal. Asked for one of the new bus stop names to refer to the rowing club. Cllr Debbie Kaur-Thiara – Aldborough Ward Supports the proposal as it will benefit many residents. Hainault Business Park Supports the proposal as it will improve access to and from Hainault Business Park. London TravelWatch, the London Borough of Redbridge, Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council were also consulted but did not provide a formal response. The London Borough of Redbridge have informally indicated support for the scheme.

8

Appendix A - Copy of the consultation letter, maps, and CRM email

9

10

11

12

13

14

Email to Oyster Card holders We sent an email to registered oyster card holders who have specified they use route 462. The email was issued to 13,117 people on 9 February 2015 and provided a link to our consultation page.

15

Appendix B – Letter distribution area

16

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch Elected Members Caroline Pidgeon AM Darren Johnson AM Gareth Bacon AM Jenny Jones AM Murad Qureshi AM Nicky Gavron AM Navin Shah AM Andrew Boff AM Victoria Borwick AM Tom Copley AM Stephen Knight AM Fiona Twycross AM Roger Evans AM Lee Scott MP Ilford North Eleanor Laing MP Epping Forest Kewel Chana Grange Hill Ward Alan Lion Grange Hill Ward Gagan Mohindra Grange Hill Ward John Howard Aldorough Ward Debbie Kaur-Thiara Aldorough Ward Wes Sterling Aldorough Ward Brian Lambert Fairlop Ward Joyce Ryan Fairlop Ward Tom Sharpe Fairlop Ward Roy Emmett Hainault Ward Joe Hehir Hainault Ward Mark Santos Hainault Ward

Local Authorities London Borough of Redbridge Epping Forest District Council Essex County Council/Essex Highways

Police & Health Authorities Metropolitan Police Redbridge Safer Transport Team London Ambulance Service London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Care Commissioning Group (CCG)

17

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

Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) London Older People's Strategy Group Age Concern London MIND Age UK National Children's Bureau Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance National Grid BT RADAR London Access Forum Campaign for Better Transport RNIB Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Royal Mail

CTC, The national cycling charity London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

Disability Alliance Sense Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Sixty Plus

EDF Energy Stroke Association Greater London Forum for the Elderly Sustrans Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Thames Water

Joint Mobility Unit The British Dyslexia Association Living Streets London Cycling Campaign