bus service changes in richmond, twickenham and whitton · 2020-06-18 · richmond town centre...
TRANSCRIPT
Bus Service Changes in Richmond, Twickenham and Whitton Consultation Report June 2020
2
Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4
Summary of issues raised during consultation ......................................................... 4
Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4
1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 6
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 7
2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 8
2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Potential outcomes ......................................................................................... 8
2.3 Who we consulted .......................................................................................... 8
2.5 Dates and duration ......................................................................................... 9
2.6 What we asked ............................................................................................... 9
2.7 Methods of responding ................................................................................... 9
2.8 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................... 9
2.9 Equalities Assessment ................................................................................... 9
2.10 Analysis of consultation responses ........................................................... 10
3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 11
3.1 Number of respondents ................................................................................ 11
3.2 Methods of responding (public responses)................................................... 11
3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ........................................... 11
4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 12
4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 .......................................................... 12
4.2 Summary of Questions 2 and 3 .................................................................... 13
4.3 Summary of Questions 4 and 5 .................................................................... 14
4.4 Summary of Questions 6 and 7 .................................................................... 15
4.5 Summary of Questions 8 and 9 .................................................................... 16
4.6 Summary of Question 10.............................................................................. 17
4.7 Summary of stakeholder responses ............................................................. 19
4.9 Comments on the consultation ..................................................................... 24
5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 25
3
Appendix A: Response to key issues raised ............................................................. 26
4
Executive summary This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on changes proposed to bus services in Richmond, Twickenham and Whitton. The document also presents our responses to issues commonly raised during the consultation.
Between 30 October 2018 and 6 January 2019, we consulted on proposals for changes to bus routes 110, 419, 493, H22 and H37 to reallocate bus resources to where additional capacity is needed in Richmond, Twickenham and Whitton.
We received 3800 responses to the consultation including 3777 public responses and 23 stakeholder responses.
The main themes are highlighted below, with more detailed analysis in section 4 below.
Summary of issues raised during consultation • Concern that fewer routes between Twickenham and Richmond will impact on
capacity/crowding
• Concern that fewer routes between Twickenham and Richmond will mean longer waiting times/journey times
• Concern that reduced frequency on route H37 will mean longer waiting times or journey times
• Concern that length of the proposed new route 110 will negatively impact on reliability
• Concern about removal of route 110 from West Middlesex Hospital
• Concern about loss of link on route H22 to Richmond (e.g. from Whitton)
• It was also noted a number of people were not clear if the new route 110 will follow the same routeing as the 419 does now (e.g. via North Barnes/Lonsdale Road)
Next steps As a result of comments received during consultation and the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, we have made changes to the proposals. Currently we plan to introduce these changes in December 2020.
5
The proposals are planned to be revised as follows • Reroute the 110 to operate between Hounslow Bus Station and
Hammersmith. Route 110 will no longer run between Whitton, Hospital Bridge Road and West Middlesex Hospital and will instead operate via Whitton High Street, Chertsey Road and St Margarets Road to Richmond Town Centre, then via the current 391 routing to Hammersmith. Extending the 110 to Hammersmith via route 391 is more suitable than extending it via route 419 as it will operate every 15 mins and have a slightly shorter run time
• The extension of the 419 would no longer be required and route 391 would be renumbered 110
• Cut route 493 back to Richmond Bus Station – as original proposal • Cut route H22 back to Twickenham – as original proposal – but also extend it
from Twickenham to West Middlesex Hospital. Extending route H22 from Twickenham to West Middlesex Hospital will retain many of the links that are broken by the withdrawal of route 110. It also creates new links for the centre of Whitton.
• Reduce frequencies on route H37 – as original proposal • Introduce two journeys in each peak on route 490 to provide sufficient
capacity on Staines Road
These changes help to address concerns raised in response to the consultation on the original scheme. They take into consideration changes to the network that took place as a result of the long-term closure of Hammersmith Bridge. They also give higher frequencies to West Middlesex Hospital and remove excess capacity in the Richmond and Twickenham areas to release resource that can be deployed more effectively elsewhere.
.
6
1. About the proposals
1.1 Introduction We proposed changes to bus routes 110, 419, 493, H22 and H37 to reallocate bus resources to where additional capacity is needed in Richmond, Twickenham and Whitton. Route 110 and 419
- Routes 110 and 419 would be merged (all to be renumbered route 110). - Route 110 would be rerouted to Whitton, St Margaret’s and Richmond. - Route 110 would be extended to Hammersmith via Castelnau. - Route 110 would replace route 419 entirely between Hammersmith and
Richmond, at the same frequency as the 419. - Route 110 would no longer run between Whitton and West Middlesex Hospital
(covered by higher frequency routes 267 and H22). - The merged route would have buses running every 15 minutes rather than
every 20 minutes. Existing route 110 passengers using the route between Hounslow and Whitton would receive a frequency increase. It would run via A316 Chertsey Road between Twickenham Stadium and St. Margaret’s, a 1.2 kilometre section of road not currently served by buses. New stops were proposed providing new links to local Richmond and Whitton town centres.
Route 493
- Route 493 would no longer run between Richmond, Manor Circus Homebase and Richmond Bus Station. Bus standing space would be available in Richmond town centre meaning route 493 would no longer need to run to Manor Circus for standing.
- Through routes 190, 391, 419 and R68, 17 buses per hour are provided between Manor Circus and Richmond town centre which are sufficient to meet demand.
Route H22
- Route H22 would be rerouted to serve nearer to Twickenham station. - Route H22 would no longer run between Richmond, Manor Circus and
Twickenham town centre. However, R68 and R70 would continue to serve Richmond Road.
Route H37
- Route H37 frequency would be reduced from buses running every 6 minutes to buses running every 7 to 8 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes.
7
An extra bus would run to provide 9 bph during peak demand to and from Richmond and a second extra bus would remain in place to meet afternoon school demand at Isleworth.
- Frequency reduction from buses running every 10 minutes to buses running every 12 minutes during all evenings.
- Frequency reduction from buses running every 8 minutes to buses running every 10 minutes during Sunday shopping hours.
- The route would be covered at its busiest point, St. Margaret’s, by extended route 110/419. This would add an extra 4 buses per hour during the peaks and Monday to Saturday daytimes, and provide new travel options.
1.2 Purpose Frequency changes In addition to the frequency changes proposed on route H37, the proposed changes would result in the following frequency changes:
- Increased frequency on the busiest section of the existing 110, between Whitton and Hounslow, during Monday to Saturday daytimes. This is because the current route 110 (3 buses per hour) would be merged with route 419 (4 buses per hour).
- Lower bus frequency between Whitton and West Middlesex Hospital, due to
removal of bus route 110. However, routes 267 and 481 provide sufficient capacity and many of the same links between Whitton, Twickenham, Ivybridge and West Middlesex Hospital.
Reliability and capacity As route 493 is currently a very long route, we anticipate that the proposed changes to this route would improve reliability. A second bus route would provide crowding relief on route H37 at its busiest point between St. Margaret’s and Richmond town centre. The proposed 110/419 route provides an extra 4 buses per hour. This means an overall increase to 12 buses per hour on this busy section of the route. Bus standing space would be available in Richmond town centre due to the merging of the 110 and 419 meaning route 493 would no longer need to run to Manor Circus for standing. We are currently running routes H22, H37 and 493 beyond Richmond town centre to Manor Circus to stand. This adds 20 buses per hour to the A316 corridor and not all of this capacity is required. Through routes 190, 391, 419 and R68 (17 buses per hour) are currently provided which are sufficient to meet demand.
8
2. About the consultation
2.1 Purpose 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/s for the proposals
• 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 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 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 Chapter 4.
2.3 Who we consulted We consulted all affected key stakeholders including local councillors, London Assembly Members and Members of Parliament. We also consulted all other affected groups including, Residents Associations, transport user groups, local businesses, local residents, and bus users.
9
2.5 Dates and duration The consultion ran between 30 October 2018 and 6 January 2019. The closing date was extended to take account of the fact that the email to registered oyster card users was delayed.
2.6 What we asked For each route in the proposals, we asked if people were affected by the change and if so how. We also asked people to leave general comments about the proposals.
2.7 Methods of responding Consultees were able to respond online, via email or via letter using our freepost address. They were also able to comment via the customer contact centre.
2.8 Consultation materials and publicity We sent an email to all registered oyster card users of each affected route. We also posted a notice about the proposals at bus stoips along the affecetd routes. Key stakeholder also received an email alerting them to the consultation and a press notice was issued to local papers.
2.8.1 Meetings with stakeholders
We held a pre consultation meeting with officers of the London Borough of Richmond Uppn Thames. They then briefed lead members and local ward councillors.
2.9 Equalities Assessment We took steps to ensure that all 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:
• Identifying and emailing relevant stakeholders including but not limited to the Age UK London, Dyslexia Action The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Action on Hearing Loss and Inclusion London, inviting them to respond to the consultation
• Ensuring that the materials were written in plain English and available on request in different formats (for example Braille, large print, other languages)
10
• 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.
2.10 Analysis of consultation responses Responses were reviewed by our in-house Consultation Analysts. The online questionaire contained nine ‘closed’ question, where respondents could indicate their views on our proposals, and one “open” question, where respondents could provide any additional comments on the proposals. 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 internal expert, allowing the responses to be reviewed and coded into themes. Responses received by letter or email were coded using the same framework.
11
3. About the respondents
3.1 Number of respondents Respondents Total % Public responses 3777 99% Stakeholder responses 23 1% Total 3800 100%
3.2 Methods of responding (public responses) Methods of responding Total % Website 3353 89% Letter/email 424 11% Total 3777 100%
3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation
How did you find out about this consultation? Total % Received an email from TfL 1071 28% Received a letter from TfL 28 1% Read about in the press 192 5% Saw it on the TfL website 128 3% Social media 911 24% Other (please specify) 813 22% Not Answered 634 17% Total 3777 100%
12
4. Summary of all consultation responses We received 3800 responses to the consultation. 3777 were from members of the public and 23 were from stakeholders. A summary of the responses is set out in sections 4.1 to 4.6. The stakeholder responses are shown section 4.7.
4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 We asked respondents if they used any of the bus routes that we were consulting on (respondents could choose more than one option).
110 419 493 H22 H37 None ofthese routes
Total 1825 531 413 2157 1456 52
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Do you use any of the following bus routes?
13
4.2 Summary of Questions 2 and 3 Question 2 asked respondents if they thought that our proposals for routes 110 and 419 would impact on their journey.
Question 3 went to ask those who had answered yes to question 2 how they though the proposals for these routes would affect their journey.
Yes No Don't know Notapplicable
NotAnswered Total
Total 2222 520 244 323 468 3777% 59% 14% 6% 9% 12% 100%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Do you think our proposals for bus routes 110 and 419 will have an impact on your journey?
Journeytime
Amount ofinterchange
Comfort(space
available onthe bus)
Frequencyof service Your fare Journey
experience
Total 1681 1297 907 1385 182 1185
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
If yes, how do you think these changes will affect your journey?
14
4.3 Summary of Questions 4 and 5 We asked respondents if they thought that our proposals for route 493 would impact on their journey.
Question 5 asked those who had answered yes to question 4 how they though the proposed changes to route 493 would affect their journey.
Yes No Don't know Notapplicable
NotAnswered Total
Total 382 1398 390 1014 593 3777% 10% 37% 10% 27% 16% 100%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Do you think our proposals for bus route 493 will have an impact on your journey?
Journeytime
Amount ofinterchange
Comfort(space
available onthe bus)
Frequencyof service Your fare Journey
experience
Total 280 232 149 222 47 202
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
If yes, how do you think these changes will affect your journey?
15
4.4 Summary of Questions 6 and 7 Question 6 asked respondents if they thought that our proposals for route H22 would impact on their journey.
Question 7 went to ask those who had answered yes to question 6 how they though our proposals for the H22 would affect their journey.
Yes No Don’t know Notapplicable
NotAnswered Total
Total 1976 605 230 415 551 3777% 52% 16% 6% 11% 15% 100%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Do you think our proposals for bus route H22 will have an impact on your journey?
Journeytime
Amount ofinterchange
Comfort(space
available onthe bus)
Frequencyof service Your fare Journey
experience
Total 1579 1396 969 1286 241 1159
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
If yes, how do you think these changes will affect your journey?
16
4.5 Summary of Questions 8 and 9 In question 8, we asked respondents if they thought that our proposals for route H37 would impact on their journey.
Question 9 asked those who had answered yes to question 8 how they though the proposed changes to route H37 would affect their journey.
Yes No Don't know Notapplicable
NotAnswered Total
Total 1294 905 246 696 636 3777% 34% 24% 7% 18% 17% 100%
-100
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
Do you think our proposals for bus route H37 will have an impact on your journey?
Journeytime
Amount ofinterchange
Comfort(space
availableon the bus)
Frequencyof service Your fare Journey
experience
Total 920 354 779 1098 94 702
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
If yes, how do you think these changes will affect your journey?
17
4.6 Summary of Question 10 Question 10 asked respondents if they had any further comments or suggestions about our proposals. The main comments and suggestions (i.e. where there were more than 10 responses for an issue) are listed in the table below:
Frequency/capacity Concern that fewer routes between Twickenham and Richmond will impact on capacity/crowding 564
H37: Concern that reduced frequency on route H37 will impact on capacity/crowding 403
Concern that fewer routes between Twickenham and Richmond will mean longer waiting times/journey times 278
H37: Concern that reduced frequency will mean longer waiting times/journey times 214
Concern that the proposals generally don’t factor in increased demand from new developments, schools etc 97
Where is the evidence of spare capacity between Twickenham and Richmond? 20 Services to Manor Circus shouldn't be cut because of the plans for new homes there 14
Reliability 110: Concern that length of new route will negatively impact on reliability 111 110: Concern that route 267 is a less reliable link between Twickenham, Isleworth and West Middlesex Hospital 95
110: Concern that routeing via the A316 will have a negative effect on reliability 51 110: Concern that reliability will suffer on rugby match days 30 If timetables were better regulated, these cuts wouldn't be needed 22 Broken Journeys 110: Concern about removal of route 110 from West Middlesex Hospital 523 H22: Concern about loss of link to Richmond (e.g. from Whitton) 431 General concern about having to change buses for the less mobile, those with disabilities, school children etc (including safety concerns) 388
Concern about loss of direct bus links from West Twickenham/Staines Road area 371
110: Concern about loss of connection to Twickenham station/town centre 152 Concern about longer walks to bus stops especially for elderly, less mobile, children etc 135
493: Concern about loss of direct link to Manor Circus/Richmond station (e.g. from St Mary’s or St George’s hospitals) 90
Concern that this area is remote to rail/Tube network and relies on buses 22 Concern about loss of direct bus access to and from Manor Circus 22 Concern that the tube/train is not always an option (accessibility/cost/crowding) 10 New routeing 110 and H22 Not clear if the new route 110 will follow the same routeing as the 419 does now (e.g. via North Barnes/Lonsdale Road) 156
110: Concern that bus stops on the A316 will interrupt traffic flow 39 Whitton High St and other local roads are not suitable for two bus routes 28 110: A316 Chertsey Rd is not a residential road 20 110: Whitton High Street not a desired destination 10
18
Alternative suggestions Other local routes (e.g. 490 and R70) will be busier following these changes and will require additional frequency or double deck buses 165
H37: Increase frequency 114 If the 110 changes go ahead there will be no route serving the West Middlesex Hospital entrance 49
481: Increase frequency 24 H22: Reroute via Arragon Rd and London Rd so it better serves Twickenham Town Centre and station 17
110: Double deck buses needed 15 110/419: Increase frequency 15 Extend the new H22 route into West Middlesex Hospital from Twickenham. 14 110: Run between Whitton/Hounslow and West Middlesex Hospital instead 11 Introduce school route to cover the loss of the 110 and H22 to Staines Rd 11 267: Increase frequency 11 110: Should not go down Chertsey Road but go across Whitton Road to Twickenham Station instead 11
H22: Double deck buses needed 10 Support General support for overall proposals 113 110: General support 79 110: Support rerouting via Whitton High St 79 110: Support routeing along the A316 and via St Margaret’s 60 419: General support 23 H22: General support 21 Support link between Twickenham stadium and Richmond station 18 Support more options from Whitton 17 H37: General support 15 493: General support 15 Opposition General opposition to overall proposals 237 H37: Generally opposed 187 H22: Generally opposed 185 110: Generally opposed 160 Reducing public transport options will increase car use 122 Changes will be detrimental to Isleworth residents 83 More frequent buses and more bus routes are needed generally, not service cuts 76 419: Generally opposed 20 493: Generally opposed 19 Vehicle type Concern about pollution: electric buses needed 10 Other comments and suggestions Other route suggestions 48 Out of scope comment 28 110: Where will the stop after St Margaret’s Station and on Chertsey Road be? 15 Consultation criticism H22 doesn't serve West Middlesex hospital as indicated 16
19
4.7 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.
Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Some positive aspects of the proposals such as new links to Whitton. However this proposal is about redistribution rather than growth and doesn’t represent the claim that inner London changes are being made to grow outer London bus services. They also don’t take into account population growth brought about by new developments. TfL should not reduce frequency on route H37 and should also look again at the proposed routeing of the 110
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames The proposed change to route 110 would dis-benefit existing users who travel to Twickenham Station and the West Middlesex Hospital, who will see their journeys severed, many of whom will be older and disabled passengers who rely on bus services to reach their medical appointments. Many residents think a better option than that proposed would be for the 110 route to run Whitton Road-London Road-Arragon Road-Richmond Road to Richmond. This option would have negligible impact in terms of distance compared with the proposed route but would maintain and strengthen connectivity between Richmond, Twickenham and Whitton. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames strongly oppose the proposed reduction in frequency on route H37. They are also very concerned that the proposal to remove both the 493 and H22 bus routes from Manor Circus has not taken into account the impacts of potential redevelopment nearby, particularly as it is proposed to be low car/car free and therefore requires good public transport. The Council is committed to improving air quality in Richmond and we want to ensure that only the cleanest buses operate in the borough. We do not wish to see dirtier buses cascaded to areas outside ULEZ and would appreciate confirmation of the timetable for all bus routes in Richmond to be Euro VI compliant. Heathfield and Whitton ward councillors, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Some support for the new links for Whitton. However this should not be at the expense of a direct link to West Middlesex Hospital. They do not accept the need for East West links across the borough as these are well provided by the tube network. Therefore they believe we should keep the current split in terms of bus service (a services that serves Hounslow to Richmond and a separate service which serves Richmond to Hammersmith). If some form of the proposals do go ahead they would
20
support the new H22 service being extended so that it continue to Langhorn Drive when the new turn on to the A316 is installed which would serve residents on the Dene Estate (off the Chertsey Road) who currently don’t have access to a bus service. North Richmond ward councillors, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames They object to TfL’s proposed changes to routes H22, 493 and H37. H22 and 493 are used by local residents travelling to hospitals and schools. It is unreasonable to ask hospital outpatients, the elderly, disabled, schoolchildren and those travelling with babies and toddlers to change buses. To cut bus services in Richmond is at odds with TfL’s strategy of increasing bus services in outer London. There are proposals to build 400 new homes at a car-free residential development (Homebase site) on Manor Road, next to where the H22, 493 and H37 currently terminate. To remove these three bus services from serving Manor Road would deprive nearly 1,000 potential new passengers of useful connections to other parts of west and south London. Indeed, more bus services will be needed, not fewer, when the development is built. They have no objections to proposed changes to routes 110 and 419. Councillor Richard Pyne, North Richmond ward, London Borough of Richmond Constituents are objecting to loss of links to Manor Circus, many use the services to get from there to Richmond, Sheen, Roehampton or Wimbledon. Cllr Lotte Campanale, Kew ward, London Borough of Richmond Objects to removing a service which links to a hospital. The proposals do nothing to encourage local bus use. Cllr Roger Crouch, Twickenham Riverside ward, London Borough of Richmond Objects to reduced access to West Middlesex Hospital, has some qualified support for the rerouteing of the 110 but this make cause traffic issues. Cllr Piers Allen, West Twickenham ward, London Borough of Richmond Objects to the loss of a direct link to West Middlesex Hospital. A direct connection between the H22 and 110 near Twickenham Station would be needed (perhaps by taking the 110 down Whitton and London Roads as Dr Cable suggests, and ending the H22 in London Road in central Twickenham or Langhorn Drive, to serve residents in the Dene Estate. Route 490 would have to be increased in frequency.
21
Cllr Helen Lee-Parsons, West Twickenham ward, London Borough of Richmond Objects to the changes to the H22 as it is well used in the am and pm peaks and the proposals will not increase public transport use. Cllr Salman Shaheen, Isleworth ward, London Borough of Hounslow Objects to all proposals relating to Isleworth. 110 cut will put pressure on the 267 and isolate those needing to get to West Middlesex Hospital. The H37 reduction would further compound poor public transport in Isleworth. Councillor Daanish Saeed, Isleworth ward, London Borough of Hounslow Objects to changes to 110 as it will put more pressure on other already crowded routes. It will also cause problems for residents trying to get to West Middlesex Hospital. Isleworth was also not included in the title of the consultation which may stop some local residents from responding. Traffic Management Unit, Metropolitan Police No objections to the scheme as a whole. However, a scheme for a controlled crossing at the junction with London Road will need to be implemented prior to the proposed bus route change. Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Object to the changes to route 110 due to poorer access to the site at a time of growing demand. There would also be specific impact on the most vulnerable/less mobile as the direct access would cease to be immediately outside the hospital front door but on the main Twickenham Road. There would also be a high impact on staff commuting from Twickenham Station to the Hospital. A significant proportion of hospital staff live locally to the Hospital and Twickenham – with its quicker services to Clapham Junction/central London (rather than the slower service through Syon Lane). Healthwatch Richmond They object to the changes to route 110. There would be too much pressure route 267, and it would mean a longer walk for those with mobility issues. This would have a disproportionately negative affect on vulnerable bus users. Patient Participation Group for St Margaret’s Medical Practice They object to the reduction in frequency of route H37 as this is the only bus that serves the surgery and local car parking is very limited. Waldegrave School They object to the changes which will cause problems for students at Waldegrave School who live in the Richmond and Kew area and travel daily to Waldegrave School.
22
Richmond Society They object to the loss of service along the A316 corridor between Richmond and Manor Circus (H22 and 493). The proposals to withdraw the service along this stretch is inappropriate when significant population growth is occurring along this stretch of the A316 corridor. Objects to the loss of bus capacity (H22 reduction) connecting Richmond and Twickenham town centres via Marble Hill would be retrogressive and mean a reduced service to Orleans School and the Civic Centre. Objects to the proposal to cut back the 493 as the route assists a significant population cluster around the A316 who need to visit the hospitals at Tooting and Roehampton. Objects to the linking of the 110 and 419 as this may affect reliability. These proposals do not address the poor bus service currently offered along the Lower Richmond Road (i.e. between Manor Circus and Mortlake). North St Margaret's Residents' Association Objects top reduction in frequency of H37 as other changes proposed will not adequately compensate. Also the 110 needs to serve West Middlesex Hospital as there would be too much pressure on the 267 and it stops outside rather than in the hospital. St John's Residents Association They object to the reduction frequency on route H37 as this would makes services too crowded. The linking of the 110 and 419 would create reliability issues as the route would be very long. The 419 should be retained and extended to the West Middlesex Hospital. Butterfield Close Residents Association Ltd They support the proposals for route 110. Richmond upon Thames Forum for Older People They object to the changes to route 110 as this will have a negative impact on people using West Middlesex Hospital. Thames Eyot Residents Association (TERA) They object to the proposals for route 110 and H22 as these will create more overcrowding on other local routes. The changes also remove a direct link to West Middlesex Hospital which is unacceptable.
23
Barnes Baptist Church Will the newly proposed structure of the 110 serve Londsdale Road/Suffolk Road? St Margaret’s Foot Clinic They object to changes to the H37 as they will have a negative impact on their business.
24
4.9 Comments on the consultation 3241 of the public respondents provided feedback on the quality of the consultation and associated materials:
The main comments received about the consultation materials were:
P os itiv e C omments The consultation material clear 22 The maps provided were useful 15 Appreciate being consulted 10 Neg ativ e C omments The consultation was not publicised enough 394 The consultation materials were not clear/misleading 56 Maps should have shown all routes in their entirety 50 Concern that decisions have been made/tick box exercise only 49 Not enough detail about the rationale behind the proposals 44 Maps not clear/detailed enough 32 Before and after routes should have been shown on same map 24 Not clear from the consultation title that Isleworth was covered 19 The questionnaire was basic 17 Questionnaire skewed towards providing the answers TfL wants 17 More detailed info required about frequency changes/journey times 14 C omments /s ug g es tions Would have liked the opportunity to say if the proposals would have a positive or negative impact 63 More info required on new bus stop/terminus locations 17 Not enough information given about the changes to route 419 13
Very good G ood Acceptable P oor Very poor NotAnswered T otal
T otal 437 991 1113 409 291 536 3777% 12% 26% 29% 11% 8% 14% 100%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
What do you think about the quality of this c ons ultation?
25
5. Next steps As a result of comments received during consultation and the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, we have made changes to the proposals Currently we plan to introduce these changes in December 2020. The propels are planned to be revised as follows
• Reroute the 110 between Whitton and Richmond via the originally proposed rerouteing of the 419. Extend it from Richmond to Hammersmith via route 391 Extending the 110 to Hammersmith via route 391 is more suitable than extending it via route 419 as it will operate every 15 mins and have a slightly shorter run time.
• Withdraw route 391 • Abandon the extension of the 419 • Cut route 493 back to Richmond Bus Station – as original proposal • Cut route H22 back to Twickenham – as original proposal – but also extend it
from Twickenham to West Middlesex Hospital. Extending route H22 from Twickenham to West Middlesex Hospital will retain many of the links that are broken by the withdrawal of route 110. It also creates new links for the centre of Whitton.
• Reduce frequencies on route H37 – as original proposal • Introduce two journeys in each peak on route 490 to provide sufficient
capacity on Staines Road
These changes help to address concerns raised in response to the consultation on the original scheme. They take into consideration changes to the network that took place as a result of the long term closure of Hammersmith Bridge. They also give higher frequencies to West Middlesex Hospital and removes excess capacity in the Richmond and Twickenham areas to release resource that can be deployed more effectively elsewhere. .
26
Appendix A: Response to key issues raised • Concern that fewer routes between Twickenham and Richmond will impact on
capacity/crowding
- The proposal to shorten the H22 will reduce surplus capacity between Twickenham and Richmond. However, the 33, 110, 190, 371, 419, 490, R68 and R70 will continue to provide this link with adequate capacity to carry passengers at all times.
• Concern that fewer routes between Twickenham and Richmond will mean longer waiting times/journey times
- The proposals will have reduce daytime provision from approximately 35 buses per hour to 30 buses per hour. On average this will increase waiting times by around 20 seconds.
• Concern that reduced frequency on route H37 will mean longer waiting times or journey times.
- The proposed reduction from 10 buses per hour (bph) to 8 bph will increase average waiting times by around 45 seconds. There will still have been sufficient capacity to meet demand.
• Concern that length of the proposed new route 110 will negatively impact on reliability
- The length of the proposed 110 is within our bounds of acceptability and we believe it can operate reliably. Performance will be kept under regular review and any issues arising will be addressed.
• Concern about removal of route 110 from West Middlesex Hospital - 400 daily links to the hospital will be broken. This is approximately 10% of
trips on route 110 on a typical weekday The revised scheme will extend the H22 to the hospital which will retain 340 of these and create other new direct links.
• Concern about loss of links on route H22 to Richmond (e.g. from Whitton) - Approximately 950 links will be broken. Same stop interchange is available in
Twickenham Town Centre for routes 490 and R70 for journeys to and from Richmond
• It was also noted a number of people were not clear if the new route 110 will follow the same routeing as the 419 does now (e.g. via North Barnes/Lonsdale Road)
- It was always intended for the 110 to provide a like-for-like replacement of the 419 between Richmond Station and Hammersmith Bus station. This included the routeing via Lonsdale Road. However the revised scheme means there will be no changes to the 493.
27
• Concern that the proposals generally don’t factor in increased demand from new developments, schools etc.
- Plans are in place to address the predicted uplift in demand from the relocation of the Turing House School. There will be spare capacity to carry additional loads between Manor Circus and Richmond Town Centre and Twickenham.
• Concern that route 267 is a less reliable link between Twickenham, Isleworth and West Middlesex Hospital
- Reliability on route 267 is currently being affected by traffic displaced due to the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. We are putting measures in place to mitigate this. Route H22 will also serve the hospital under the revised scheme.
• 110: Concern that reliability will suffer on rugby match days - We will operate a special service on match days as we currently do with route
281.
• General concern about having to change buses for the less mobile, those with disabilities, school children etc. (including safety concerns)
- It is accepted that some links will be broken and people will have to change buses. We take the disbenefit of this into account when appraising service changes. However, new links will be created, Powder Mill Lane to Whitton High Street for example which has been requested by passengers.
• Concern about loss of direct link to Manor Circus/Richmond station (eg from Queen Mary’s Hospital or St George’s hospitals)
- A change of buses will be necessary to complete these trips. 44 daily links
between Richmond (Manor Circus – The Quadrant) and Queen Mary’s Hospital (Roehampton) will be broken. 3 daily links between Richmond (Manor Circus – The Quadrant) and St George’s Hospital will be broken. Route 371 will continue to provide a link between Manor Circus and Richmond Town Centre for a same stop interchange with the 493 on Sheen Road in both directions.
• Concern that bus stops on the A316 will interrupt traffic flow
- We’ve worked with our highways colleagues to ensure the proposed stops will
not adversely affect road safety.
• Other local routes (e.g. 490 and R70) will be busier following these changes and will require frequency or double deck buses
- We will run extra journeys on route 490 to provide sufficient capacity at the
busiest times on Staines Road.
28
• Concerns over capacity on route H37
- There is sufficient capacity across the busiest hour to cater for demand on the H37.
• If the 110 changes go ahead there will be no route from Twickenham serving
the West Middlesex Hospital entrance
- Route H22 will serve the hospital under the revised scheme, maintaining the link to Twickenham.
29