News, comment and features

ETUG BUS REVIEW MEETING

22 JANUARY 2015

Attendees:

Lloyd Tew Cragg (Chairman)
Ranjith Chandrasena
Tony Wallis
Peter Smith     Over 50’s Forum
Michael Huggins    EEBP
David Pickles    Resident
Sue Wilkinson    LDPB Transport Group
David Cockle     Western Enfield Residents’ Association
Linda Miller     Resident
Basil Clarke     Resident
David Taylor     LBE

Councillors:

Derek Levy
Glynis Vince
Joanne Laban
Peter Fallart

Pauline Bagley    Clerk

1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

Lloyd welcomed everyone to the meeting.  He informed those present that unfortunately there would be no TfL representation on the evening.

He then outlined the history of the review process that had been undertaken by ETUG on behalf of the Council.  Various public meetings had been held to review the work carried out by the ‘Three Busketeers’ who had looked at all the existing routes serving the borough and to provide possible alternatives whilst being mindful that any proposals should be cost neutral.

 There were various areas reviewed:

* Access to hospitals
* Services to regeneration areas
* Services to secondary schools, in particular the 191 bus
* The implications to services of level crossings particularly if the barriers should be down longer to accommodate higher numbers of train journeys
* Access to retail and industrial parks
* Interchanges

2. FEEDBACK

RECEIVED a verbal feedback from Tony Wallis to the draft TfL response to the Local Authority (LA) proposals.

 NOTED that

(a) the LA proposals had been submitted 14 months ago and the initial concern was around the length of time it had taken TfL to respond;

(b) TfL had attended an earlier PTCG meeting to present their findings.  The update to this presentation now included more references to Barnet Hospital and a direct response to Enfield’s proposals;

(c ) Enfield had proposed 29 changes to 41 bus routes which was a radical shift;

(d) TfL had concentrated initially on changes to access to hospitals and the second tranche would be to look at regeneration and economic areas.  These areas of focus had been agreed with the Council;

(e ) the review had suggested various options to access Chase Farm Hospital.  However TfL had developed their own versions of these for evaluation.  

* Reconfiguration of Enfield National Health Services has resulted in a decrease in patients attending Chase Farm Hospital and an increase attending North Middlesex Hospital.  There is evidence that the decrease at CFH is fairly closely matched by the increase at NMUH.
* The current network offered good connections to local NHS facilities across the borough.  Hospitals were well connected by a number of buses and buses per hour particularly if people were willing to change buses.  ETUG response is that the changes the Bus Review proposed would have increased direct access to the 3 hospitals and extended the number of links possible via one change of bus (which TfL elsewhere in its response feels is acceptable for the existing network, but not apparently for the proposed one).
* TfL argue that people were willing to change but in other parts of their response, they constantly say that the Council’s proposals in terms of requiring changes was unacceptable.  Enfield’s alternatives have been ruled out at the first stage as being too expensive.
* TfL have wrongly implied that the Council had proposed an extension to the W10 to North Middlesex Hospital or the 318 northwards.
* The Council had proposed a two way working loop for the W10 to serve Forty Hall, Myddleton House and Capel Manor.  TfL were not willing to look at this proposal.  They were also not
willing to consider the proposal to connect the W10 between Enfield Town and Arnos proposed in the Review.
* TfL have considered increasing the 491 frequency from four to five buses per hour.  The Council had suggested an alternative route between Ponders End and Enfield Chase.
* It was intended to improve bus accessibility at stops to 95% by 2016.

(f) it was the view that TfL had not taken the Council’s proposals as seriously as it should have, for the following reasons:

* TfL had taken over a year to come back with a response to around 25% of the Council’s proposals.
* They had not tried to follow a whole area evaluation process which was not helpful as the Council had proposed many related changes.
* TfL proposals to various services were not what had been proposed by the Council.
* There was no timetable in respect of responding to the rest of the review.

(g) Mr Wallis suggested that there were various questions to put to TfL, including:

* Why had the response taken so long?
* Why was there no attempt to evaluate the overall network (the GLA had been keen to see this happen)?
* Why is regeneration next on the list?
* It had been identified in TfL’s response that hospitals were less of an issue than town centres and access to railway stations so why was this area reviewed first?
* The suggestion that good liaison was needed with the rail operators during the next review phase.
* A better understanding on how long the process would take.

3. SUMMARISATION BY THE CHAIRMAN

 NOTED that

(a) the review had looked at costs and there had been no proposals for a massive increase in costs;

(b) the brief had been the same number of bus services, therefore the exercise was cost neutral with the possible exception of the deployment of double deckers on some services;

 (c ) proposals for Meridian Water would save money;

(d) it was Lloyd’s view that TfL had not looked at the overall network and had not taken a fair look at the Councils’ proposals.

4. SUMMARISATION BY RANJITH CHANDRASENA

 NOTED that

(a) the Council had done its best to develop a fully integrated network and no other borough had undertaken such an in depth review;

(b) Ranjith was perplexed as the Council’s proposals had clearly indicated which were longer term, aspirational and a small number of a high priority.  Therefore he could not understand why access to hospitals had been the first one on the TfL list.

5. SUMMARISATION BY COUNCILLOR LEVY/CHAIRMAN OF PTCG

 NOTED that

(a) it was his view that Tony’s summarisation of the deficiencies within TfL’s response had been kind.  He added that TfL’s report had a lot of positives, but the Council’s proposals were ‘in the round’;

(b) TfL had shrunk the big picture to the narrow area of access to health; Councillor Levy asked why this was;

(c ) in terms of a Council response, Councillor Levy said that he wanted to see how tranches 2 and 3 were analysed as at that point, TfL would then realise the inter-connectivity issues;

(d) Councillor Levy was disappointed that despite having access to all Council information, TfL had chosen to go ahead in their own way; perhaps they had thought that Enfield would ‘go away’.  Although TfL had undertaken a lot of work, the Council would like them to look at Enfield’s proposals as a whole;

(e ) sufficient information had been submitted to TfL for them to have a better understanding and that they should be looking at the big picture;

(f) if this report was accepted, it might have an adverse impact on the other tranches.  The Council would have to wait and see;

(g) the report had been produced before the reconfiguration of Chase Farm Hospital.  It was Councillor Levy’s view that TfL had been disrespectful in the way they had considered the Council’s proposals.

6. SUMMARISATION BY DAVID TAYLOR

 NOTED that

(a) TfL had apologised for the length of time to respond; they only had a small team working on the project across London;

 (b) Enfield had had more of their focus in comparison to other boroughs;

(c ) as TfL have offered to discuss the report, it would be sensible to take up this offer;

(d) TfL had advised that there were insufficient resources to review the whole network therefore it had been broken down into themes and health had been agreed as the first tranche of work;

(e ) those present discussed whether the upcoming contract negotiations would have an effect on TfL responses and the time taken.  Councillor Levy was of the opinion that this should not affect the process and in any event, the Council should like to see a response to tranches 2 and 3 before June 2015 in an outline format.

7. GENERAL DISCUSSION

 NOTED that 

(a) Mr Smith was sceptical that the response could come within this timescale as it had taken some eight years to move the 307 bus stop.  He added that TfL had refused to acknowledge the situation particularly in terms of various access issues in Firs Lane, Barrowell Green, and transport links in respect of extra surgery facilities and flats and a hospice in that area.  Tony Wallis said that TfL did acknowledge that this particular area was poorly served;

(b) it was the view that it was important for TfL to attend a future meeting to give an update to their 37 page report;

(c ) Tony Wallis confirmed that the overall impact of the Council’s proposals was to decrease the number of buses per hour on the more populous eastern side of the borough and to increase it in the less populous areas of western Enfield.  He added that the east was extremely well served with buses and high frequency and this point should be emphasised to TfL;

(d) TfL informed the group of the various technical data on the cost benefit ratios for the 317, 191, 491, W10 extension and the 318.  The figure had to be above 1 before it could be considered, and this would then include the 317, 491, W10 and 318;

(e ) Councillor Levy said that the Council, despite putting forward 29 changes, had not expected that all of them should be taken on board.  He said that TfL had just chosen the wrong starting point.  He was of the view that TfL had thought the Council wanted to see all 29 changes;

(f) Ranjith confirmed that the 29 changes proposed were not radical.  He added that TfL only needed to consult on any agreed changes.  The Council had submitted four levels of priorities, some being aspirational.  He urged TfL to look at the small list of priorities;

(g) it was the consensus that the general public should be made aware of the outcomes of the review and the TfL response at some point in the future.

RESOLVED that the following points should be referred to Joanne McCartney to take up on behalf of the group, Val Shawcross and TfL on behalf of the Council and ETUG:

* There was a need to look at the network as a whole including inter-connectivity;
* A response by June 2015;
* Request Joanne McCartney to take up the issues with TfL;
* The Council’s proposals had overall shifted the bus resources from eastern Enfield to western Enfield which would result in implications for car usage;
* TfL needed to evaluate what had been proposed and not their own version of what they said Enfield had proposed;
* TfL and ETUG should meet to look at the detail of the report;
* The report highlights town centres and railway station access but there were no proposals to look at these;
* Better co-ordination needed between bus and rail operators;
* The review process proposed had been in four tranches – high, medium, longer term and aspirational.  It might have been better to look at the proposals in that way;
* The Council’s proposals had greatly improved direct access to all three hospitals.  Despite NHS officials feeling that it was reasonable (indeed they had funded direct connections themselves pending the outcome of the Review), TfL could not see the sense of running services between the three hospitals serving the area even though by doing so, access from the areas served by the direct routes would be improved simultaneously to both hospitals at the end of those routes;
* The 20% drop in passengers to Chase Farm Hospital since reconfiguration would be more than balanced out post development of the site for housing, a school etc.

8. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING

 NOTED that the next ETUG meeting would be taking place on 5 March 15.