Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
Contents
Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3
1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5
2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 8
3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 12
4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 15
5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ............................................................. 24
Appendix B: Stakeholder List .................................................................................... 29
Appendix C: Copy of customer email ........................................................................ 34
Appendix D: Copy of stakeholder email .................................................................... 35
Appendix E: Bus stop poster ..................................................................................... 36
3
Executive summary
This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation
on the following scheme: proposal to swap routes 350 and U5 between Hayes and
Stockley Park.
Between 30 September and 11 November 2016, we consulted on these proposals.
We received 302 responses to the consultation (including six responses from local
stakeholders), of those which answered the questions 26 per cent supported or
partially supported our proposals and 61 per cent opposed or opposed most
elements.
The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Appendix A.
Summary of issues raised during consultation
The majority of respondents were either opposed, or opposed elements, of our
proposal to change the routes of the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes.
The detailed comments on the scheme indicated that the key concern was the
reduction in frequency and capacity on route 350 rather than the swapping of the
routes.
The main issues were frustrations that the proposals did not address the perceived
capacity concerns on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor. Respondents were
concerned that the reduction would further exacerbate capacity issues from Hayes to
Stockley Park.
Another key issue was the feeling it would make access to Heathrow (especially for
night time shift workers) more problematic with longer overall journey times due to
the wait between buses. There were concerns that it would encourage greater car
use and add to the congestion in and around the airport.
Of those that commented on the introduction of double deck buses to the U5, the
majority were in favour of the extra capacity this would deliver.
There were numerous requests for us to increase the frequency of either or both
routes in the peak periods, especially on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor.
Next steps
After considering all responses, we plan to proceed with the scheme as proposed.
4
We will commit to close monitoring of the capacity levels of the U5, after the service
change on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor, to assess whether demand justifies
an increase in capacity.
5
1. About the proposals
1.1 Introduction
From December 2019, a direct Elizabeth line service (formally referred to as
Crossrail) to Central and East London will run from Hanwell, Southall, Hayes and
Harlington, West Drayton and Heathrow. Overall, demand around Elizabeth line
stations within the London Borough of Hillingdon is expected to increase significantly
on some corridors. The bus network needs to reflect and respond to these changes.
We have reviewed bus routes serving Elizabeth line stations in the area, to make
sure that services can match future travel demand in the best way possible.
1.2 Purpose
We strive to provide a network that has sufficient capacity at the busiest point at the
busiest times but also builds in additional capacity on those corridors where we
anticipate growth in demand. However, we need to provide any enhancements in a
cost effective way.
The purpose of this scheme is to transfer the busiest section of the route 350 to the
route U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes and Harlington station. This would allow
one route to serve all the busy sections on both the U5 and 350.
The demand levels would then justify the conversion to a double deck. This would
negate the need for an additional journey in the AM peak on the U5 between Porters
Way and West Drayton station. It would also allow for savings on the route 350
where demand does not meet capacity outside of the AM peak and for sections west
of Stockley Park. The increase in capacity on the U5 would also allow us to meet
expected demand growth from the opening of Elizabeth line services in the area.
1.3 Detailed description
We proposed to swap routes 350 and U5 between Hayes and Stockley Park:
Route U5 would be re-routed to serve North Hyde Road, Dawley Road and
Furzeground Way. Double deck buses will be introduced and the frequency
will stay the same
Route 350 would be re-routed to serve Botwell Lane, Botwell Common Road
and Furzeground Way. Single deck buses will be introduced and it will run
less frequently with a bus every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday during the
daytime, and every 30 minutes Sundays and evenings
6
The existing frequency of double-deck services between Hayes and Stockley
Park, via North Hyde Road, would not change
The hours of operation, including the early start on the 350, would remain the
same
Here is a map of the current routes:
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
2.3 Who we consulted
We sought the views of those customers currently using the routes, along with
representatives for a number of key institutions, railway stations and employment
destinations along the route. We also consulted stakeholders including the London
Borough of Hillingdon, schools and colleges, London TravelWatch, local politicians,
and local resident and community groups.
9
2.4 Dates and duration
The consultation was open for six weeks between 30 September and 11 November
2016.
2.5 What we asked
The questionnaire asked nine generic questions relating to name, age, gender, email
address, postcode, organisation name (if responding on behalf of a
business/stakeholder/organisation), whether the respondent had a health problem or
disability which limited their day to day activities, how they had heard about the
consultation, and views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked
two questions on the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to
provide any comments).
There were five questions specific to the consultation:
How often do you use the bus routes U5 and 350? Respondents were given a
choice of six answers: 5+ days a week, 3 to 4 days a week, 1 to 2 days a week, 1
to 3 times a month, less than once a month, I do not use this route
To what extent do you support or oppose our proposals to change the routes of
the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes?
Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the routes 350 and U5?
(there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)
Do you have any additional comments on proposals to introduce double deck
vehicles on the route U5? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide
comments)
Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the frequency
of the 350? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)
2.6 Methods of responding
People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They
could respond by accessing the online questionnaire; by using our freepost address
at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS; or by emailing [email protected]
2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We sent out 5,850 emails to registered customers who use the U5 and 350 and we
also wrote to 179 stakeholders about the consultation. We displayed posters either
on or around bus stops and also sent posters to be displayed in local institutions
such as GP surgeries, schools and places of worship.
10
A copy of the email that was sent to customers can be found in Appendix C.
A copy of the stakeholder email can be found in Appendix D.
A copy of the poster can be found in Appendix E.
2.7.1 Website
The consultation was available on our consultation website
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-u5-and-350
2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets
Our principal method of communcoiation was via customer email and posters at bus
stops. However, we also sent letters to frontages along sections of the U5 that would
have double deck buses used on them for this first time. We also sent a letter to
frontages on York Road and Chippendale Way to notify them of our proposed
changes to the bus standing arrangements.
2.7.3 Emails to public
We sent an email with a link to the online consultation to registered users of the U5
and 350 bus routes. In total 5,850 emails were sent out.
2.7.4 Emails/letters to stakeholders
We sent an email or a letter to stakeholders with a link to the online consultation
page. In total 179 communications were sent out. A full list of the stakeholder we
contacted can be found in Appendix B.
2.7.5 Press and media activity
We issued a press release to the west London local website, Getwestlondon which is
the online presence of local hard copy newspapers in the area.
2.7.6 On-site advertising
Posters highlighting the consultation were placed at bus stops along the route where
space was available, and on neighbouring lamp coloumns and shelters where there
was no space on the bus stop post.
Copies of the poster were also sent to various local institutions along both routes
with the request that they were displayed This inlcuded libraries, schools, religious
institutions, GP surgeries, railway stations, and lesiure and community centres.
11
2.7.7 Meetings with stakeholders
We carried out pre-engagement with London Borough of Hillingdon, sustainable
travel team at Heathrow Airport and the travel consultants for the Stockley Park
Travel Planning Group during the planning stages of the consultaton. We also
attended a meeitng of the Stockely Park Travel Planning Group just before the
launch of the consultation to brief them on the proposals.
2.8 Analysis of consultation responses
Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out in-house.
There were four “open” questions (three seeking comments about the proposals and
one on the quality of the consultation). A draft coding frame was developed for
responses to these questions, which was finalised following review by another
member of the team. Two people conducted the tagging exercise and their
methodology was audited after the initial 25 repsonses to ensure a consistent
approach.
There was one duplicate response which was deleted.
12
3. About the respondents
This section contains a profile of the responses from the general public. Please note
responses from stakeholders are reported separately under section 4.3.
3.1 Number of respondents
Respondents Total %
Public responses 296 98%
Stakeholder responses 5 2%
Total 301
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation
294 of the 296 answered this question. With over 46 per cent of respondents stating
the customer email as the principal way that they heard about the consultation.
How did you hear about this consultation?
Option Total %
Received an email from TfL 137 47
Received a letter from TfL 1 0
Read about in the press 5 2
Saw it on the TfL website 28 10
Social media 17 6
Other (please specify) 68 23
Not Answered 38 13
Total 294
3.3 Methods of responding
Methods of responding Total %
Online 279 95
Email/Post 15 5
Total 294
How did you hear about this consultation? - "Other"
"Other" Total %
Word of mouth 26 33
Poster at bus stop
32 40
Community/workplace
22 28
Total 80
13
3.4 Profile of respondents
We asked a number of questions to profile respondents. Over 40 per cent of
respondents were regularly using the U5 and over 65 per cent regularly using the
350. The majority of those responding were male. The most common group to
respond were those aged 25-44 and just over 4 per cent of respondents declared a
disability that limits their daily activities.
How often do you use these bus routes?
Option U5 % 350
%
5 or more days a week 63 21 132 45
1 to 4 days per week 63 21 73 25
Less frequently than 1 day per week 79 27 36 12
Never 57 19 23 8
Prefer not to say 8 3 9 3
Not applicable (if responding on behalf of an organisation, business or community group) 1 0 2 1
Not Answered 23 8 19 6
Total 294 294
What is your age group?
Age group Number of responses %
Under 16 6 2
16-24 37 13
25-44 152 52
45-64 70 24
65-74 9 3
75+ 1 0
Not Answered 19 6
Total 294
14
Are you male or female?
Option Total %
Male 171 58
Female 103 35
Not Answered 20 7
Total 294
Do you have a mental or physical disability that limits your daily activities or the work you can do, including any issues due to your
age?
Option Total %
Yes 13 4
No 258 88
Not Answered 23 8
Total 294
15
4. Summary of all consultation responses
We received 296 responses from members of the public. Their responses are set
out in section 4.1 to 4.4. The five responses from stakeholders are included in
section 4.5.
4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1
4.1.1 Overall support
We asked respondents to tell us whether they supported our proposals. 281 out of
294 respondents answered this question.
SupportSupport
mostelements
Neithersupport
or oppose
Opposemost
elementsOppose Not sure
Don’t know
NotAnswered
Responses 36 42 19 62 117 4 1 13
% 12% 14% 6% 21% 40% 1% 0% 4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
To what extent do you support or oppose our proposals to change the routes of the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes?
16
4.1.2 Top 10 issues
The table below shows the top 10 issues that were raised by respondents across all
three free text questions.
Top Ten Issues
Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to Heathrow/Piccadilly line
71
Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to Stockley Park 71
Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: General opposition
45
Increase Frequency on 350
37
Support introducing double deck buses on U5 – general
36
Support introducing double deck buses on U5- extra capacity
28
Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to West Drayton Station/Crossrail
23
Oppose re-routing of 350: Longer journey times from T5 to Hayes 22
General opposition
21
Request to keep frequency of 350 as is
21
4.2 Summary of Question 2
We asked respondents to tell us whether they had any comments they would like to
make on the proposed changes to routes 350 and U5. A detailed analysis of
comments is available in Appendix A. The largest issue raised was that the
proposals do not address perceived capacity issues in the peaks on the Hayes to
Stockley Park Corridor. It was felt that introducing single deck buses on the route
350 would exacerbate capacity issues. There were calls for an increase in
frequency of routes serving the Hayes to Stockley Park Corridor and for us to match
bus departures to train arrival times. People were also concerned that the new route
for 350 would result in longer journey times to the airport.
17
4.2.1 Issues commonly raised
Issue Total
Opposition 20
General opposition 20
Oppose 350 becoming a single decker 41
General opposition to introduction of single deck buses on the route 21
Concerns about adequate capacity in the peaks 20
Concerns about adequate space for luggage 10
Oppose re-routing of routes 350 & U5 40
Longer journey times from T5 to Hayes 22
Keep current routes 7
Concerns about access to Asda 6
Broken journeys to Botwell Green Leisure Centre 4
Broken journeys Dawley Road to Heathrow 1
Other 33
Out of scope of consultation 17
Misunderstood Proposal 9
Concerned about Uxbridge Town Centre stops 4
May cause confusion for current users 3
Support 17
General support 12
Support 350 becoming single deck bus 5
Suggestions 66
General frequency increase on U5 22
Increase frequency in peaks between Hayes & Stockley Park 29
Address timetabling so buses are timed for train arrivals 10
Make 350 double deck in peaks 5
18
4.3 Summary of Question 3
We asked respondents to tell us whether they would like to make any comments on
proposals to introduce double deck vehicles on the U5. A detailed analysis of
comments is available in Appendix A. The most frequently raised comment was
support for introducing double deck buses on the U5 as it would deliver extra
capacity on the route.
4.3.1 Issues commonly raised
Issue Total
Concerns/opposed 10
Concerned about quality of buses used 5
Concerns about adequate road width 4
Suggestion tree cutting may be required 1
Opposed 9
Oppose double deckers on U5: General 9
Support 65
Comments demonstrating general support for introduction of double deck buses
37
Support extra capacity 28
Suggestion 22
Make both routes double deck 12
Double deck only required in AM/PM peak 6
Make U5 more frequent instead of double deck 2
4.4 Summary of Question 4
We asked respondents to tell us whether they would like to make any comments on
proposals to change the frequency of the 350. A detailed analysis is available in
Appendix A. The most frequently cited issues were this change would have a
detrimental effect on journeys to Stockley Park and to Heathrow Airport.
19
4.4.1 Issues commonly raised
Oppose decrease in frequency 210
Access to Heathrow/Piccadilly line
71
Access to Stockley Park
71
General opposition
45
Access to West Drayton Station/Crossrail 23
Suggestions 71
Increase Frequency on 350
37
Keep frequency as is
21
Keep Peak Frequency as is
8
Shuttle bus between Hayes and Stockley Park
5
4.5 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.
Local Authorities
London Borough of Hillingdon
The borough confirmed they did not have any objections to our proposed changes to
bus routes 350 and U5.
Businesses, employers and venues
HAVI
HAVI support most elements of the proposals including the introduction of double
deck buses to the U5 but oppose the reduction in frequency of the 350 as they feel
more buses not fewer are needed to serve Stockley Park.
20
Heathrow Airport
The airport did not submit a formal response during the consultation period.
However, we did carry out pre-engagement with them where they did not think there
was anything in the proposal that currently caused them concern. They appreciate
that getting more joined up journeys from Elizabeth line services to buses is key to
increasing public transport journeys to/from the airport.
They were pleased to note that the early start time of 350 would remain as
maintaining the early services was important to them.
IMG Productions
The company oppose the proposals. They are concerned that the reduction in
frequency of 350 service to Heathrow from Stockley Park would adversely affect
users from their building in Stockely Park. They would welcome further measures to
increase capacity between Hayes and Stockley Park as this is grossly overcrowded
in the morning.
Stockley Park Travel Planning Group (SPTPG)
This stakeholder represents the businesses based in Stockley Park and works to
improve travel planning for employees. They oppose our proposals as they feel they
do nothing to address the current issues that are faced by commuters accessing
Stockley Park.
The group state that the majority of Stockley Park employees who travel by bus use
the 350 as it’s the quickest journey to Stockley Park. However, they note that
customers will take whichever of the services arrives first and customers often cross
the road to use the U5. They recognise that the U5 under the new proposal would
become the quickest route but they are concerned as to what bus stop it would leave
from - if the double decker U5 leaves from the stop across the road, then every
morning, there would be a lot of people crossing (and sometimes running) across the
road to catch the bus.
They strongly disagree on the proposition to have a less frequent 350 service and
would recommend keeping the double deck on 350 and adding double decks for the
U5 route.
They would also like to see more frequent services for both U5 & 350 especially
during peak time (8-10am and 5-7pm) as they feel it is often a battle to get on a bus
form the station in the morning. They would also like to see a specific bus for
Stockley Park only at peak time.
They are also calling for us to better align the bus and train timetables so that buses
depart after the trains arrive. They feel this would help to address wait times and
overcrowding the employees currently report.
21
They are also concerned that the opening of the Elizabeth line will also see more
people accessing Stockley Park via Hayes Station and the reduction in capacity
through the reduction in frequency of the 350 will make it harder to get on a bus in
the peak periods.
Local interest groups
Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association
The asssociation stated they neither supported or oppposed the proposals. They are
concerned about the reduction in frequency between West Drayton and Heathrow
Airport and the impact this will have on users in the villages around Heathrow,
especially the reduction to the servcies in the evening. They feel a wait time of up to
30 minutes is unacceptable. They would also like to see better alignment of bus
departure times with trian arrival times at West Drayton.
Yewsley and West Drayton Town Centre Action Group
Stated they supported the proposals and were pleased that 350 would now terminate
at Hayes Asda.
4.6 Comments on the consultation
267 respondents (91%) of respondents provided a comment on the quality of the
consultation and associated materials. The majority felt the quality of the consultation
was very good or good.
Very good Good Acceptable Poor Very poorNot
Answered
Number ofresponses
61 107 70 19 10 27
% 21% 36% 24% 6% 3% 9%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140What do you think about the quality of this consultation?
22
We received 35 comments about the consultation. The main issues rasied were
concerning the consultation process with 11 comments concerned that we should
have done more to advertise the consultation and five that the decision has already
been made so the consultation is a pointless exercise. A further eight felt the
rationale for the proposal was poorly explained in the materials.
23
5. Next steps
After considering all responses, we have concluded that there have not been any
issues raised that were not considered in the planning of the proposal.
We appreciate that customers are unlikely to support a reduction in frequency of
services, however we need to ensure we balance minimising disruption to customers
with the need to operate the bus service in a cost effective way.
Currently the 350 is lightly used, except for a mile-long section between Hayes &
Harlington Station and Stockley Park in the morning peak. Swapping the routes of
the U5 and 350 along this stretch allows us to reduce the frequency on the 350 and
replace double with single deck buses to better align capacity with demand, and
ensure we are providing services in a cost effective way.
We will commit to close monitoring of the capacity levels of the U5 after the service
change on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor to assess whether demand justifies
an increase in capacity.
We therefore plan to proceed with our proposal. The service change will be
implemented in April 2017.
24
Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments
Of the 294 respondents, 217 left comments in the open text fields across questions
two, three and four. We have summarised the significant themes below.
Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the route
350 and U5?
General Opposition
There were 20 respondents who objected to the scheme with general comments
such as:
I don't like these changes
Not a great idea
Pointless/unnecessary exercise
The proposed change is degradation of the service
Changes not needed
Maintain current routes
No benefit or improvement to service
Oppose 350 becoming a single deck bus
We received 51 comments opposing the introduction of a single deck bus to the
revised 350 route.
There were 21 comments where respondents cited general opposition to the
introduction of single deck buses on the route, with comments such as ‘I think it is a
mistake’; ‘I strongly oppose changing to single deck vehicle’; and ‘I think there should
be double deck buses for both the U5 and the 350’. Where respondents provided
further explanation it was typically regarding general concerns about impact on the
capacity of the route.
There were a further 20 comments expressing concern that the proposals would
result in inadequate capacity in the peak periods (including school journey times).
Especially for those wishing to access Stockley Park, as it was felt buses were
already overcrowded and left people at stops (especially in the AM peak). In
particular, there was concern that combined with the reduced evening and weekend
frequency, there would not be enough capacity for Heathrow’s shift workers (this can
fall outside of peak times – for example late in the evening).
There were also 10 comments suggesting single deck buses were inappropriate on a
route to the airport as there would be insufficient space for luggage.
25
Oppose re-routing of the routes 350 and U5
There were 33 comments opposing the re-routing of the 350 and the U5 because of
the impact on current journeys. The most common of these with 22 comments, was
objection on the grounds it would result in longer journey times to Heathrow Airport
for those in the Hayes area, as using Botwell Common Lane would lead to longer
journey times. It would also result in longer journey times to Heathrow from the
Dawley Road area as customers would need to use two services. Other areas of
concern were access to the Asda supermarket for current users of the U5, and
broken journeys for those west of Botwell Common Lane (in particular access to the
Leisure Centre).
A further seven comments called for us to keep the routes as they are.
Other general types of comments
There were three comments stating that changes would cause confusion for current
users. There were seven comments where respondents had misunderstood the
proposal or some aspects of it. The majority of the confusion seems to stem from the
route swap, with respondents not quite understanding which section would swap and
believing that the swap would make the U5 journey longer.
17 respondents made comments or suggestions that were not related this
consultation. Six of those respondents made suggestions relating to bus routes U1
and U3, i.e., varying arrival times, increasing capacity etc. The other bus route
mentioned in seven instances was route 222. Respondents commented that this run
parallel to U5. Three respondents suggested that frequency on the 222 should be
reduced in order for route 350 frequency to be maintained. Six respondents also
mentioned that route A10 had poor service and this needed to be addressed.
Support for the proposed changes to the route
There were 12 comments made that noted general support for the changes and for
the 350 becoming a single deck bus.
Suggestions
We received 66 comments making suggestions as to how we could improve the
proposals to swap the routes. The common theme across these comments was that
the proposal did not address the key issue for the routes, which was strongly felt to
be the lack of capacity on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor. 29 comments called
for an increase on both routes in the peaks, particularly the AM.
There were a further 22 comments calling for a general increase in frequency on the
whole of the U5 route and five calls for the 350 to remain a double deck in the peak
periods.
26
There were also ten comments requesting us to address the timetabling of both
routes so that the bus departure times are better aligned to the train arrival times. It
was felt this would help to address the overcrowding concerns in the morning peak.
Do you have any additional comments on proposals to introduce double deck
vehicles on the route U5?
Concerns with introducing double decks on the route U5
We received 10 comments concerning the practicalities of introducing double deck
buses onto the route, these covered concerns about adequate road widths, whether
tree cutting would be required and also seeking clarification that a good quality
modern fleet would be introduced.
Opposition to introducing double deck buses on the route U5
We received nine comments objecting to the proposal to introduce a double decker
bus on route U5. Four of the respondents stated that the route is not busy enough to
warrant use of a double deck bus, while one said that they are only needed between
Hayes and Stockley. One respondent stated that as the U5 overlaps with a number
of other buses thus the extra capacity was not needed. One respondent said that
having double decker buses running down Porter’s Way would be intrusive and
suggested only having double decker buses during peak hours only if necessary.
Two did not give a reason for opposing the proposal while one said that if they had to
be introduced then TfL needed to ensure that the wheelchair spaces were only used
by wheelchair users and not taken up by pushchairs as is currently the case.
Support for introducing double decks on the route U5
We received 65 comments noting support for introducing double deck buses to the
route. Just over half of these were comments of general support like ‘This is a good
idea’ or ‘This should have been done years ago’. There were also a further 28
comments welcoming the increase capacity on the route particularly in regard to the
West Drayton area, school journey times and accommodating the extra 350
customers that would now use the U5.
Suggestions to modify the proposal to introduce double decks
We received 12 comments asking us to make both routes double deck, six
comments thought double deck buses were only required in the AM/PM peaks and a
further two comments suggested it would be more appropriate to make the U5 more
frequent rather than introduce double deck buses.
27
Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the
frequency of the 350?
Opposition to the decrease in frequency
We received 210 comments opposing the proposed reduction in frequency. The
largest area of concern was the negative effect it would have on access to Heathrow
(Terminal 5), BA Waterside, Harmondsworth Detention Centre and the Piccadilly
Line, with 71 comments specifying concerns about this. There were concerns about
employees accessing work in a timely fashion and regular travellers making flights,
and that a reduction in frequency would result in unacceptable increases to overall
journey times.
A particular area of concern was the reduction in frequency to every 30 minutes at
the weekend and evening as it was felt this was unacceptable for airport workers
who would need to leave much more time to make journeys and would cause real
issues if the service was delayed or traffic was bad. In addition, it may present safety
concerns for shift workers who would need to wait longer at stops.
Many also noted that lower frequencies would deter people from using it and
encourage car use to the airport for both staff and those using the airport. Others
were concerned that opening of Elizabeth line services would in fact further increase
demand for access to Heathrow.
A couple of respondents also noted a reduction in service would be to the determent
of residents of the Heathrow Villages who use the service.
The second largest area of objection, with 71 comments, was the impact it would
have on access to Stockley Park. Respondents were concerned that the changes
would further intensify the current capacity problems between Hayes and Stockley
Park in the peak periods. Respondents noted overcrowding on buses and people
being left at stops. In addition a longer wait time between services would make the
journey longer, especially if customers just missed a service or were unable to get on
one due to it being at full capacity. Some noted that a number of employees of
Stockley Park businesses come from far away and that additional wait times would
present an unfair burden on their already lengthy journeys. There was also concern
that the opening of Elizabeth line would also create more demand for the route. Calls
for an increase in the U5 to offset the decrease in the 350 was also a common
theme.
There were 45 comments noting general opposition to the proposal with sentiments
such as ‘buses running every 20 minutes is not frequent enough’, ‘decreasing its
timetable would inconvenience me greatly” and “I think it’s too much of wait at every
12 minutes”
There were 22 comments about access to West Drayton station and the future
Elizabeth line service being compromised by the proposal to decrease the frequency
28
on route 350. The main issue mentioned 13 times was that the 350 is the only direct
bus between West Drayton and Terminal 5 and the decrease would make it more
difficult to travel between the two points. Respondents also stated that the decrease
in frequency would have a negative impact and inconvenience commuters. Some
also felt the local population is increasing and the introduction Elizabeth line services
will increase demand so frequency shouldn’t be decreased
Suggestions relating to proposals to change frequency of the 350
There were 74 comments suggestion alternatives to the proposal to reduce the
frequency of the route 350. There were 37 calls to actually increase, rather than
decrease the frequency. A further 21 to keep the frequency as is, eight to keep the
peak frequencies as is and five calls for us to introduce a shuttle bus service
between Hayes and Stockley Park.
29
Appendix B: Stakeholder List
London TravelWatch
Local Authorities
London Borough of Hillingdon
Elected Members
Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member
Nicky Gavron Assembly Member
Shaun Bailey Assembly Member
Kemi Badenoch Assembly Member
Sian Berry Assembly Member
David Kurten Assembly Member
Caroline Russell Assembly Member
Peter Whittle Assembly Member
Andrew Boff Assembly Member
Tom Copley Assembly Member
Onkar Sahota Assembly Member
Fiona Twycross Assembly Member
Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member
John McDonnell MP - Hayes & Harlington
Boris Johnson MP - Uxbridge and South Rusilip
Cllr Burrows Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling
Cllr Cooper Uxbridge North
Cllr Graham Uxbridge North
Cllr Yarrow Uxbridge North
Cllr Burles Uxbridge South
Cllr Cooper Uxbridge South
Cllr Chamdal Brunel
Cllr Mills Brunel
Cllr Stead Brunel
Cllr Ahmad-Wallana Yiewsley
Cllr Davis Yiewsley
Cllr Edwards Yiewsley
Cllr Duncan West Drayton
Cllr Gilham West Drayton
Cllr Sweeting West Drayton
Cllr Gardner Botwell
Cllr Jarjussey Botwell
Cllr Khursheed Botwell
30
Cllr Dhillon Pinkwell
Cllr Lakhmana Pinkwell
Cllr Morse Pinkwell
Cllr Khatra Heathrow Villages
Cllr Money Heathrow Villages
Cllr Nelson Heathrow Villages
Local Businesses and Institutions
Airline Operators
Committee Heathrow
Asda
BA Waterside
BAA Heathrow
Botwell Green Leisure
Centre
Botwell Green Library
Botwell House Catholic
Primary School
British Airways
Brunel University
Cowley St Laurence School
Harmondsworth
Immigration Centre
Harmondsworth Primary
School
Hayes and Harlington
Station
Hayes Elim Christian
Centre
Hayes Muslim Centre
Hyde Park Hayes
Immaculate Heart of Mary
Church
31
Lake Park Farm Academy
Laurel Lane Primary School
Moorcroft School
Parish Church of St Anslen
Rabbsfarm Primary School
Royal Mail
Skyport Trade Park
Spelthorne Farm Centre
St Lawrence's Church
St Mary's Church
St Matthew's Church,
Yiewsley
St Matthews CofE Primary
School
Stockley Academy
Stockley Park
The Uxbridge Community
Centre
Trade City Business Park
Uxbridge High School
Uxbridge Library
West Drayton Library
West Drayton Primary
School
West Drayton Station
West Drayton Young
People's Centre
Whitehall Infant School
Whitehall Junior School
Word Of Life Christian
32
Fellowship Church
Yiewsley and West Drayton
Community Centre
Yiewsley Library
Young People's Academy
Local Interest Groups
Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee
Hayes Town Centre Partnership
West London Alliance
Yiewsley and West Drayton Town Centre Action Group
Police and Health Authorities
Brunel Medical Centre
Central Uxbridge Surgery
Church Road Surgery
Dr Chana and Partners
Elers Road Health Clinic
Hayes Town Medical
Centre
Hillingdon Hospital
Hillingdon Safer Transport
Team
Kingsway Surgery
London Ambulance Service
Metropolitan Police
Heathrow Airport
Metropolitan Police service
NHS Hillingdon Clinical
33
Commissioning Group
Orchard Medical Practice
Otterfield Medical Centre
The Belmont Medical
Centre
Transport Groups
ICE -London
ICE -London
London Cycling Campaign
(Hillingdon)
London TravelWatch
London Omnibus Traction
Society
TPH for Heathrow Airport
Accessibility Groups
Accessibility Officer
(Hillingdon Council)
Disability Rights UK
RNIB
34
Appendix C: Copy of customer email
Are our emails displaying well on your device? If not, allow images or view online
Home Plan journey Status update Bus information
Dear Test email recipient,
We would like your views on proposals to make changes to bus route 350, which runs between Hayes and Heathrow and bus route U5, which runs between Hayes and Uxbridge.
Both routes would be altered between Hayes and Stockley Park.
For full details on proposals, and to share your views, please click here
This consultation will run until 11 November.
Yours sincerely
Peter Bradley
Head of Consultation
These are our consultation customer service updates. To unsubscribe, please click here