1

Proposed changes to bus route 394

Consultation Report February 2015

2

Proposed changes to bus route 394

Consultation Report

1

Contents 1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 2

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

3 Overview of consultation responses ...................................................................................... 4

4 Responses from members of the public ................................................................................ 6

5 Responses from stakeholders ................................................................................................ 7

6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 7

Appendix A – Consultation material .............................................................................................. 8

Appendix B – Leaflet distribution area ........................................................................................ 12

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................................. 13

2

1 Background

We recently consulted stakeholders and the public on proposals to make changes to bus route 394 in Hackney. The consultation took place between 8 August and 3 October 2014.

At present, route 394 runs via Amhurst Road and Dalston Lane in both directions to serve Homerton Hospital. This route was put in place to facilitate the pedestrianisation of Hackney Narrow Way.

In order to provide faster journeys times from Hackney Town Centre and Central London to Homerton Hospital, we are proposing to re-route the 394 via Morning Lane, and Ponsford Street. It would no longer serve Amhurst Road, Dalston Lane, Lower Clapton Road or Urswick Road.

This report explains the background to the scheme and consultation and summarises the responses. Following the end of the consultation, we will review the results and consider whether further changes need to be made. It is anticipated that any changes will be implemented from 28 March 2015.

2 The consultation

2.1 Purpose of the scheme The consultation was designed to ensure stakeholders are aware of the proposals and to ensure that there are no significant issues.

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 consultation

2.2 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

3

2.3 Who we consulted The public consultation intended to seek the views of people who live near to the proposed route, current users of the service and other potential users. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix C and a summary of their responses is given in Section 5.

2.4 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

A letter was sent to residents within a specified zone (as shown in Appendix B)

We asked 2 specific questions. The first was to determine the level of support for the changes and the second invited people to add their own comments on the proposals which will help us to identify whether additional issues need to be considered in our final decision

We invited people to respond by using an attached pre-paid reply slip, by emailing STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk by using the TfL website, by post or by calling Customer Services on 0845 300 7000)

We sent stakeholder letters and CRM emails to users of route 394 to promote the consultation and encourage responses

Information was also available on the TfL website. People could respond using the online questionnaire form, by email or by using the methods listed above. Braille, audio and large font versions of the consultation material were available, as was a translation service to other languages

4

3 Overview of consultation responses

We received 172 written responses from members of the public and two responses from stakeholders via the online consultation. We received an additional four responses via email, three from members of the public and one from a stakeholder. A majority of respondents indicated that they support the proposal. 35% of respondents said they strongly agreed and 28% said they agreed meaning a total of 63% expressed support for the proposal. 15% of respondents said they disagreed and 8% strongly disagreed. 11% indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed. 2% said that that they did not know. Answers received to Question 5 – How did you hear about this consultation?

Email WebsitePoster atbus stop

SocialMedia

OtherNot

answeredTotal

Number of replies 132 16 5 6 12 5 176

% 75% 9% 3% 3% 7% 3%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Response type

5

Answers received to Question 6 – Do you agree with our proposal to re-route the 394 via Morning Lane and Ponsford Street?

Stronglyagree

AgreeNeither

agree nordisagree

StronglyDisagree

DisagreeDon'tknow

Notanswered

Total

Number of replies 62 49 19 14 27 3 2 176

% 35% 28% 11% 8% 15% 2% 1%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Number of Replies

6

4 Responses from members of the public

124 of the responses included comments about the proposal. These are summarised below: Answers received to Question 7: Do you have any further comments you have about our proposal

here?

Issues/ themes Number of comments

Support

Support 29

Change will improve the service

Faster 21

Reliable 5

Support with condition 3

Change will improve air pollution on Urswick Road 1

Oppose

The change is inconvenient 22

The route is only direct service to Homerton hospital from town centre/ Dalston lane 11

The route is only direct service to Homerton hospital from Angel/ Shoreditch 5

Concern about elderly people and/or patients 3

Generally oppose 2

Increase traffic congestion 1

Too many buses have been already diverted 1

Alternative suggested

Requests bus stop outside Tesco on Morning Lane 3

Requests alternative services along withdrawn sections of route 3

Other

General comments on bus operation 12

The change does not affect me 11

Not scheme related 4

7

5 Responses from stakeholders

Three stakeholders submitted responses relating to the proposals. A summary of their comments is below:

Hackney Council Recognises the net benefits of improved journey time and performance, but draws attention to the loss of several stops around the town centre, noting that stops directly serving the town centre would be reduced to three. Therefore concludes the importance of promoting the change around the town centre. Elected member for Homerton Ward expressed concern about a loss of service and route options to Homerton Hospital from the north-west part of the Ward. As an alternative, route 242 towards Homerton Hospital is considered unreliable and subject to short notice curtailments at Hackney Central. London TravelWatch

Noted that the proposal would provide slightly faster journey time to Homerton Hospital. Friends of Capital Transport Campaign

Although does not support the pedestrianisation of Hackney Narrow Way, supports the proposal to re-route the 394 as the most sensible solution.

6 Conclusion 62% of respondents to the consultation agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed change. We now intend to proceed with the proposal and plan to re-route the 394 from 9 May 2015.

8

Appendix A – Consultation material

Copy of consultation letter

9

10

Copy of consultation map

11

Copy of consultation publicity poster

12

Appendix B – Leaflet distribution area

13

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members

Meg Hillier MP

Stephen Hammond MP

Seema Malhotra MP

Jennette Arnold AM

Caroline Pidgeon AM

Darren Johnson AM

Gareth Bacon AM

Jenny Jones AM

Murad Qureshi AM

Nicky Gavron AM

Andrew Boff AM

Victoria Borwick AM

Tom Copley AM

Stephen Knight AM

Joanne McCartney AM

Fiona Twycross AM

Local Authorities

London Borough of Hackney

London Borough of Islington

London Councils

Local Interest Groups

Living Streets, Islington

Homerton Hospital

Powerscroft Road Initiative for Neighbourhood Community & Environment

Police & Health Authorities

Metropolitan Police

Islington Safer Transport Team

Hackney Safer Transport Team

Islington NHS Care commissioning Group

City and Hackney NHS Care commissioning Group

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

London Ambulance Service

Transport Groups

AA Motoring Trust

Association of British Drivers

Association of Car Fleet Operators

British Motorcyclists Federation

Freight Transport Association

Licensed Taxi Drivers Association

Motorcycle Action Group

14

Motorcycle Industry Association

Road Haulage Association

Taxi and Private Hire

Other Stakeholders

Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID)

Age Concern London

Age UK

Alzheimer’s Society

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance

BT

Campaign for Better Transport

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

CTC - The national cycling charity

Department for Transport

Disability Alliance

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

EDF Energy

Greater London Forum for the Elderly

Green Flag Group

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People

Joint Mobility Unit

Living Streets

London Cycling Campaign

London City Airport

London Older Peoples Strategy Group

London Underground

MIND

Motorcycle Industry Association

National Children's Bureau

National Grid

RADAR London Access Forum

RMT Union

RNIB (Royal National Institute of Blind People)

Royal Mail

Royal Parks

Sense

Sixty Plus

Stroke Association

Sustrans

The British Dyslexia Association

Thames Water

Unions Together

Unite Union