Healthy Streets

Bus Travel and Cycle Enfield: TfL Freedom of Information Act responses

Share this article share on facebook share on twitter

I have previously expressed concern about the effects of changes along the A105 on bus travel. This didn't seem to me to be being properly considered in what is still predominantly a debate between cyclists and those concerned about car parking.

It has taken some time to get a response from TfL to what seemed to be three key issues; the potential effects on bus journey times, getting on and off buses, and the removal of the bus stop outside the Fox.

Well here's the response. The sections in bold print are my emphasis.

Thank you for your email received by us on 15 July 2015 asking for information about the potential effects of the Cycle Enfield scheme on local bus services along the A105 Green Lanes Palmers Green. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require.

The first question of your request enquired about the following:
I want to know from that part of TfL dealing with bus services what has been discussed about the potential effects of the scheme on bus services along the A105 Green Lanes Palmers Green. I am particularly concerned about:- the effects on delays to journeys,

Transport for London (TfL) is working with the London Borough of Enfield to establish the bus impacts associated with the scheme and modelling, which is still ongoing. The base model, showing the existing operation of the A105 has been verified, however there are currently no figures available on the potential impacts on bus journeys on this corridor. This is because modelling of proposals for the junctions are yet to be submitted from Enfield’s consultants and audited in accordance with the TfL Model Audit Process (MAP). There are fortnightly meetings between Enfield and TfL which assesses the impact on bus services and passengers and TfL also undertook a review of the scheme, which was completed on 29 May 2015. Following this review, only one comment regarding bus services was sent back to Enfield and their consultants, which stated “Concerns over journey time delays for buses with the removal of the South Bound bus lane at Palmers Green and the use of the bus lane further north for cyclists (which is also a safety concern as buses run every 4 minutes at this section of the corridor). There may also be issues with the relocation of bus stops as there are quite high loadings. Please liaise with Network Development Bus Infrastructure to resolve.” We are currently working with Enfield on this issue whilst they refine the designs of the scheme.

You also asked about:
Issue of access to and from buses by less able or burdened passengers following the proposed new arrangements for cycle lanes and lowered pavements,

TfL has been in discussions with the relevant stakeholders regarding the scheme. Enfield and their consultants, Jacobs, presented a brief for the scheme, which informed TfL’s review. This meeting occurred on 11 May 2015 and included TfL’s Borough Projects and Programmes, London Buses Network Development, and a Principal Technical Specialist for Cycling. An Urban Design London surgery was also conducted on 27 May 2015, which allows an independent assessment of the designs by architects and other experts such as urban designers and planners. Once completed, the designs were amended by the consultants and then submitted as part of the formal review process. This review was completed on 29 May 2015. There were no comments regarding the proposed bus stop bypasses. Although TfL wishes to see cycling transformed across Enfield, any negative impact on bus passengers will be kept to an absolute minimum. All bus stops will be fully accessible, the design of the cycle tracks in the vicinity around the bus stops is currently underway.

After this process, the designs were further amended by Enfield’s consultants and, on 15 June 2015, an Enfield Partnership Board Meeting took place where the designs of the A105 were reviewed with Councillors, local community groups, businesses and resident associations. Jacobs, Enfield’s consultants, were also present and gave a presentation on the scheme. A concern was conveyed “that at some bus stop passengers would be required to cross cycle lanes which would prove difficult for many people.” This is highlighted in the attached meeting notes [Not with this - 15 June Partnership Board meeting minutes ]. TfL and Enfield Council are working closely together regarding the implementation of this scheme and the consultation will also help highlight any issues to be implemented in the detailed design for the scheme. If lowered pavements is brought up as part of the consultation then it will be considered.

The final point raised in your request was:
The removal of any bus stops (such as proposed outside the Fox Public House (northbound) on the distances passengers would now have to walk from the surrounding residential areas east and west of Green Lanes.

The A105 proposals are still out for consultation until 9 October 2015, therefore no final decisions regarding the removal or modification of bus stops have been made, however you can make your comments on the proposals here [the Cycle Enfiled consultation pages]. We continue to discuss this stop and all other areas within the Mini-Holland programme with Enfield’s consultants and this will form part of the detailed design process.

Log in to comment
Posts in discussion: Bus Travel and Cycle Enfield: TfL Freedom of Information Act responses
Karl Brown posted a reply
#1560
10 Sep 2015 18:21
Well done for highlighting all this data in these last few posts. I do like the bus stop focused posting, particularly how there seems to be more trees than people. There's progress.
Colin Younger posted a reply
#1739
25 Oct 2015 13:12
I've been trying to get an update from TfL on my earlier request for a view on how CE might affect bus schedules. They have now promised a reply by 12 November to my request of 15 October. I can't see why they can't answer earlier, I just asked where they are now - don't they know! The 20 day deadline for a reply to FOI questions now seems to be the regarded as the standard schedule.

Actually, my first request for an update was bounced back as being insufficiently precise so I had to resubmit it as separate question.
Colin Younger posted a reply
#1775
10 Nov 2015 11:32
This is what I asked TfL on 15 October.

I want to know from that part of TfL dealing with bus services what has been discussed about the potential effects of the scheme on bus services along the A105 Green Lanes Palmers Green. I am particularly concerned about the effects on delays to journeys, what the most up to date modelling shows and what TfL have said about any problems to services which the scheme involves.

Note the first part (about discussions) has been ignored in favour of a description of the modelling process and exchanges of modelling data.

TfL limit their reply on the following grounds

In accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply the current modelling you have requested as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information, under Section 22 of the Act.
In this instance the exemption has been applied as the information you have requested is intended for future publication.

This exemption is subject to a public interest test, which requires us to assess whether the public interest in applying the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this instance, it is considered that the public interest favours the publication of this information, in context and according to the pre-determined schedule, rather than in response to your request, to ensure the information is provided accurately and in an accessible manner.


So, what have they told me?

The essence seems to be that no one knows what even the theoretical effect cycle enfield will have on bus travel times, or by extension the impact on overall traffic flows but judging from recent news, the scheme is going ahead anyway

The longer version of the TfL reply:

I can advise that the base model is part of the design process. Traffic modelling exercises are carried out with the purpose of predicting the operational performance of a future scenario. The first step is to develop an accurately validated base model which reflects current conditions. This base model then serves as a benchmark for future scenario tests. The base model has been completed though the future scenarios are being modelled and the results will be known and shared in early 2016.

Enfield Council and their consultants are modelling the impacts on buses as part of the scheme. Transport for London (TfL) has yet to receive proposed modelling for the A105 from Enfield and their consultants, however, base modelling for the four major intersections along the A105 route have been received and approved for use.

Each junction has been modelled in isolation and validated for accuracy against on-street collected data. This is to ensure that each model is an accurate reflection of current on-street conditions. I can advise that these models are currently being updated with the proposed network changes by Enfield and their consultants, which will also be checked and verified following TfL’s Model Audit Process (MAP) upon submission. TfL has been informed by Enfield Council that we should receive this modelling by the end of 2015, the results of which will be published on their website in February/March 2016 at: www.cycleenfield.co.uk
Colin Younger posted a reply
#3593
02 Feb 2018 12:11
I have followed up earlier FOI requests and the latest exchange is as follows:

1. Could you explain how the scheme is now affecting bus time tabling on the 329 Palmers Green-Enfield route.

Changes have been made to bus timetabling on the 329, however, these changes were made following a review of the route which identified where capacity was in excess of existing demand based on the most recent travel demand data available to us.

It is not possible to accurately assess how the changes to the A105 are affecting bus journey times on this corridor at this stage. Construction works are not yet complete and a bedding-in period of at least six months is typically required following the completion of works to allow traffic conditions to settle and road user behaviour to adapt to the new road layout. We are committed to ensuring that the bus network is as reliable and efficient as possible and we will be monitoring conditions on the A105 on an ongoing basis following the implementation of the scheme.

2. Are journeys taking longer and has the frequency of services been reduced, as is now reported "to increase reliability"?

The Enfield Mini-Holland proposals include new cycle routes on the A105 and A1010. While construction on these routes was taking place in 2017, some changes to bus services were made as a temporary measure to manage delays to affected bus routes. Changes such as these are a common way of managing bus services during road construction works of any type, and all temporary changes on these routes have now been removed.

We can confirm that some permanent changes to frequencies on these routes have also been made. However, this has been done following reviews of each route, which identified where capacity was in excess of the existing demand based on the most recent travel demand data available to us, or in the case of route 491, where changes made to the routeing outside of our control have contributed to the degradation of the service. Full details of the service changes made to routes on the A105 corridor can be found below.

Route 329 was temporarily cut back to Wood Green from Turnpike Lane between January and October 2017 whilst the A105 roadworks were taking place. From 13 January 2018 route 329 was reduced from 10 buses per hour (bph) to 8 bph with the retention of the existing peak hour journeys. However, this is not related to the A105 scheme.

Route 279 had its frequency temporarily widened by up to 1 minute between July and December 2017, whilst the A1010 South and Ponders End roadworks were taking place to ensure that the service could operate. Route 279 was then reduced to 9 bph on weekdays from 6 January 2018 with two additional return journeys and two additional northbound AM peak journeys. These later changes were not because of the Mini-Holland scheme.

Route 491 was operating with up to two minutes of widening between June and December 2017 to compensate for the Mini-Holland and Ponders End roadworks. Route 491 is scheduled to have its Monday to Saturday frequency reduced to 3 bph with one additional northbound AM peak journey from 2 June 2018. This is because the North Middlesex Hospital Trust has prohibited the use of the hospital slip road, making the routeing longer and subject to traffic delays along Bridport Road which would require more resource to operate.

To summarise, the impacts of the Mini Holland schemes did require some changes to bus services but only during construction and these temporary measures have been removed. Whilst the permanent Mini-Holland schemes do impact some bus services they are not responsible for the later frequency reductions. As mentioned earlier, we will allow a 6-12 month bedding in period before carrying out monitoring of impacts on bus routes from the permanent Mini-Holland schemes.

3. Did the pre-scheme modelling reveal these problems, and if so what discussion were held with Enfield Council about them?

We have been working closely with Enfield throughout the design of all their Mini-Holland schemes to ensure that their impacts on the bus network are fully understood. Detailed traffic modelling is undertaken throughout the design process and adjustments to the design are made on an iterative basis to ensure that the final proposal minimises delay to buses as much as possible.

We have a robust system of internal approvals which schemes have to pass through before they are implemented on the network, which includes an assessment of impact on buses.
Enfield and TfL are working together to look at options to introduce measures to mitigate the potential impact of delay to buses caused by the Mini-Holland proposals. This work is ongoing.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
#3594
02 Feb 2018 15:31
Sounds like more SOGL fuss about nothing.
Colin Younger posted a reply
#3595
02 Feb 2018 15:35
It's nothing to do with SOGL. Calm down!
As a bus user I just wanted to find out what was happening, so sought the facts through FOI.
I posted the replies "for information" for PGC readers
Darren Edgar posted a reply
#3596
02 Feb 2018 16:30
Whoops, hadn't read the thread, just screamed of SOGL moaning-minnies trying to find anything to knock EMH.

Long and the short of it does seem to be "Effect - minimal" at least.
David Hughes posted a reply
#3597
02 Feb 2018 23:13
I was active on streets issues when the cycle lanes were first mooted by the council, and the 'possible' effect on bus services was certainly raised. I forget the precise details, but the council recognised that at places like traffic lights and pedestrian crossings tailbacks could/would at first be longer given the reduction in carriageway space. Which was seen as an advantage because people driving short, driver-only journeys would be incentivised by longer delays into cycling instead. Which, assuming it happened, would in turn improve the available carriageway space for the traffic that remained. Of course it was understood that this change would take time to work through.

I dropped out shortly after those preliminary ideas were being discussed, and until I cycled on the cycle lanes never gave a thought to the fact that the new bus stops would be a contentious because they usually/often mean that traffic cannot move on until the bus pulls away. Now that I’m aware I assume that this is also seen as an advantage by the council because it adds to the frustration of drivers, making it more likely that they will leave their car at home and walk, or cycle, or use public transport.

Short of banning car use I see this as inevitable and moral because cars are greedy of space and resources, easy to use selfishly and dangerously, and have detrimental effects on other users – notably children – of street space. As I see it Mini-Holland has done more than facilitate cycling for those who want to cycle; it has positive effects in terms of equality, fitness and health, the democracy of travel, and liveable streets . It has also forced into the limelight the 'sense of entitlement' drivers have taken to themselves at the expense of other users of urban space.

Locally I cycle, Colin Younger uses buses, my wife walks and uses buses. None of us young. If we can do it so can a myriad others.

Because I’m ancient I was able to walk to school when five years old, probably a kilometre or more accompanied by girls of eight or so. Other than in villages and some small towns perhaps that circumstance cannot be replicated now, but we can, and the council is doing, create residential areas – Quieter Neighbourhoods - protected from rat-running and fast traffic. Personally I think 20mph – which should be represented as 30kph – is too fast, and 20kph, about 12mph, would be better.

Cars like trains are a means of travel. Train speed is regulated by the system, but car speed is regulated mainly by drivers who have become blind to the common good and feel hard done to if there habits are called into question. The balance has to change, that sense of entitlementhas to change.
0