Night bus for night tube Consultation Report...3 1 Introduction Night Bus services in London have increased beyond recognition in the last 30 years. This reflects and supports changes

1

Peter Consultation on proposed changes to Night Bus services for Night Tube Consultation Report July 2016

Consultation on proposed changes to Night Bus services for Night Tube Consultation Report

2

Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3

2 The consultation ............................................................................................................. 5

3 Responses from members of the public ......................................................................... 7

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ............................................ 91

Appendices

Appendix A – Copy of consultation material...................................................................... 113

Appendix B – Addresses where a letter drop was carried out ........................................... 125

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted .................................................................... 127

Appendix D – Proposed Night Bus routes and Night Tube network maps ........................ 135

3

1 Introduction

Night Bus services in London have increased beyond recognition in the last 30 years.

This reflects and supports changes to London’s vibrant night time economy. The current

comprehensive Night Bus network means that most of zones 1 and 2 are within walking

distance of a Night Bus route, and London’s suburban Night Bus service is also amongst

the most comprehensive in the world. There is every indication that night time travel in

London will continue to grow.

From 19 August 2016, we will be running a Friday and Saturday Night Tube service on the Central and Victoria lines. Night Tube services on the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines will follow later in the year.

This means that many of our customers will now have a choice between Night Tube or

Night Bus. Our analysis indicates that customers who take the tube instead of the bus

for all or part of their journey will save 20 minutes on average, and in some cases up to

an hour.

When Night Tube starts, we are proposing to continue all Night Bus services, and

introduce new services to help customers travel to and from Night Tube stations. This

would continue the expansion of the network. If our proposals go ahead, they will

contribute to another year on year increase in the number of Night Buses on the road at

weekends. This increase would include improvements during this year to other services

not affected by Night Tube.

Many suburban Night Tube stations are already well connected to surrounding areas by

existing Night Buses. Of our 20 proposed new Night Bus services, 17 would run on

Friday and Saturday nights, with three running seven nights a week1. These would help

passengers start or finish their Night Tube journeys, as well as providing new travel

opportunities to and from suburban local centres. All these new services would follow

the same route and run between the same points as the day service.

On some Night Bus services extra buses run on Friday and Saturday nights to meet

increased weekend demand. On 17 out of 117 existing Night Bus routes, where we have

forecast that some passengers will chose to use Night Tube instead, it would no longer

be necessary to run as many extra buses at weekends. This is based on detailed

analysis of Oyster card and passenger survey data. These 17 services would continue

to operate at their standard weekday frequency or more, providing a local, fully

accessible service to all stops along the route.

We consulted stakeholders and the public about these proposals between 19 May 2015

and 1 July 2015.

1 Our website contains information on changes which have been implemented

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/night-bus-review


4

We have considered the views of the public and stakeholders. This document

summarises their responses to the consultation. A separate document contains our

responses to the main issues raised in the consultation.

5

2 The consultation

The consultation was designed to enable us to better understand the views of local

residents, businesses and stakeholders to learn about factors which we may not have

taken into account, and so to make a better informed decision.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding

with the proposals as originally planned.

We modify the proposals in response to issues raised

We abandon the proposals as a result of issues raised

2.1 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 changes.

To understand any issues that might affect the proposals of which we were not

previously aware.

To understand concerns and objections.

To allow respondents to make suggestions.

2.2 Who we consulted

The public consultation sought to seek the views of people who live near to the

proposed routes, current users of the services and other potential users. We consulted

stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch,

Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and interest groups. A list of those we

consulted is shown in Appendix C and a summary of their responses is given in Section

4.

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

The consultation was available to view on our consultation website via


The proposed changes were made available on the website. The proposed bus route

changes were in four categories:

new Friday and Saturday night services

new night services, seven nights a week

changes to frequencies at weekends where some passengers will transfer to Night

Tube running at least every 10 minutes

other changes

The website had five area maps, which showed the Night Tube network interchanges,

with all the night bus routes outside zone 1, the proposed new bus routes, and existing


6

routes which have proposed frequency changes. These maps were for North, East,

South, South East and West London and are attached as appendix D.

We sent a letter to selected households whose properties had frontages to the proposed

new night bus services. The criteria used included factors such as: where residents had

no previous night bus service, residential rather than dual carriageway roads, proximity

of houses to the carriageway, and if the road was on a hill. In total 10,497 letters were

sent out. We sent a copy of these letters by email to relevant ward councillors and local

authority transport lead officers. People could respond by accessing the online

consultation and answering the online survey questions; and the letterhead gave the

Consultation team’s address; email [email protected]; and telephone number for

Customer Services on 0343 222 1234.

A list of the addresses we sent letters to is shown in appendix B.

Other stakeholders were sent an email containing a link to the online consultation page.

The consultation was advertised via a press release to the media.

A link to the online consultation was sent to registered Oyster users of all the bus routes

affected. This email was sent out to 321,500 customers.

The online consultation and attached questionnaire is attached in appendix A.

There were 43 routes included in the consultation grouped together in the four

categories of proposed bus route changes (new Friday and Saturday night services,

new night services/ seven night a week, changes to frequencies at weekends where

some passengers will transfer to Night Tube, other changes). Six of the routes had inner

and outer sections with varying frequencies. The questionnaire stated we would like to

hear views about the proposed services and advised respondents to skip or tick "no

opinion" for those routes that were not relevant to them.

Respondents were asked if they supported the proposed services and were given a

choice of three answers; yes, no, no opinion. They were also asked if they had any

route specific comments through an open question.

Respondents were then asked if they had any further comments on the overall proposals through an open question. Finally respondents were asked five generic questions relating to name, email address,

postcode, organisation name (if responding on behalf of a

business/stakeholder/organisation) and how they heard about the consultation.

mailto:[email protected]

7

3 Responses from members of the public

We received 3,265 responses from members of the public. There were 3,164 responses submitted online, 98 by email, and 3 by letter.

3.1 Bus routes with new Friday and Saturday night services There were 17 routes with proposed new Friday and Saturday night services with a frequency of every 30 mins. The response to the proposals is shown in the table below.

Table excludes respondents stating no opinion or who did not respond

18% (94)

18% (122)

16% (72)

14% (67)

14% (70)

14% (55)

13% (73)

13% (62)

13% (59)

13% (70)

13% (65)

13% (50)

12.5% (62)

12% (79)

12% (66)

12% (52)

7% (55)

82% (437)

82% (567)

84% (384)

86% (420)

86% (442)

86% (348)

87% (463)

87% (398)

87% (383)

87% (462)

87% (440)

87% (347)

87.5% (434)

88% (580)

88% (488)

88% (385)

93% (773)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

114

W3

E1

H37

486

296

319

183

307

34

158

H32

132

W7

123

145

154

Do you support the proposed new Friday and Saturday night services for these routes?

Yes

No

8

The questionnaire asked if respondents supported the proposals for each route (yes/no/no opinion). Respondents were asked to skip the question or tick no opinion if the route was not relevant to them; the table excludes these two categories.

Within the further analysis of each bus route that follows, there is at least one local map of the bus route with respondents’ postcodes plotted on it. Each dot on the map represents a respondent who stated support or opposition to the proposed bus route. The dot is positioned at the centre of the area covered by the respondent’s postcode. Overall responses were very positive for these bus routes with proposed new Friday and Saturday services. The highest levels of opposition were on routes W3 (18% or 122 respondents were not in support) and route 114 (18% or 94 respondents were not in support).

Respondents were also asked for any comments about the proposed routes. These have been coded and frequency counts calculated. These are set out in the following pages also. Bus routes are presented in descending percentage order of support for the proposals.

9

Route 154

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 773 (93%) supported the proposal and 55 (7%) were opposed. 1439 had no opinion and 998 did not answer this question. The main local opposition against the proposal came from postcodes close to or on the route, particularly Beeches Avenue.

10

Compared with other route proposals we received a relatively high level of comments about route 154. These included 197 positive comments about the route including general support, improving the limited night service as well a range of benefits for customers. Comments and suggestions of a more neutral nature (175) focussed on extending the service to a 24/7 hour service throughout the week.

Eight negative comments were received about the route 154 proposal.

Route 154

Number of times raised

Positive comments General support 36

No / limited service at present 33

Bus improves safety 33

Useful for night workers 28

Useful for nights out 26

Good alternative to taxi 22

Useful for students / young people 8

Bus improves safety for women 4

Comment that it's an inexpensive way to travel 3

Useful for accessing the hospital 3

Good alternative to cars 1

Neutral comments / suggestion Should be 24/7 110

Alter / extend the route or change the bus stops served 19

Other suggestion 15

Not relevant to the proposal 10

More frequent service needed 8

Comment about the daytime service 7

Suggestion of another bus route as a better alternative 4

Comment about the consultation 2

Negative comments Concern about noise or other disturbance 6

Concern about safety (length of wait) 2

11

Route 145 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 385 (88%) supported the proposal and 52 (12%) were opposed. 1621 had no opinion and 1207 did not answer this question. The main opposition against the proposal came from postcodes close to or on the route, particularly the Dagenham end of the route, for example Hedgemans Road.

12

We received 20 positive comments about route 145 including general support and support for improving the limited service at present. There were 19 comments and suggestions of a more neutral nature such as altering / extending the route and making the service 24/7. A number of comments were also made about the daytime service. Five negative comments were received mainly relating to concerns about noise, the type of bus and other disturbance.

Route 145





Comment about usefulness for shoppers (Asda) and airport links 2


Neutral comments / suggestion



Should be 24/7 3




Other suggestion 1

Negative comments Concern about noise, type of bus used on route or other disturbance 4

Other bus routes in the area are sufficient 1

13

Route 123 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 488 (88%) supported the proposal and 66 (12%) were opposed. 1534 had no opinion and 1177 did not answer this question. Much of the local opposition to route 123 was concentrated in the Higham Hill / Walthamstow areas, just to the North of the route.

14

Almost half of the 25 positive comments received about route 123 expressed general support. There were five comments stating that the route would be useful for nights out, and three stating that the route would be beneficial for night workers. There were eight comments about the proposed frequency not being high enough, and two comments stating opposition due excessive noise and other disturbance at night.

Route 123








Neutral comments / suggestion More frequent service needed 8


Other suggestion 5


Should be 24/7 3




Concern about pollution 1

15

Route W7 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 580 (88%) supported the proposal and 79 (12%) were opposed. 1426 had no opinion and 1180 did not answer this question. There was local opposition to the W7 in Hornsey and Stroud Green areas, particularly on Crouch Hill.

16

There were eight comments expressing concern about noise and disturbance if route W7 were to be introduced. Four comments mentioned problems to do with pollution. We received 44 positive comments, just over half of which were of general support. A request for a more frequent service was the subject of 15 comments. There were 36 neutral comments and suggestions overall including four requests for convenient timetabling and three requests for bus indicator boards, both of which were often made with the nearby bus route W3 in mind.

Route W7



Should be 24/7 6

No / limited service at present, this is something that is needed 6







Comment about daytime service 6

Suggestion about timetabling unrelated to frequency 4

Indicator board required at Finsbury Park station 3



Other suggestion 1




Route duplicates another. This one isn't needed 3

Concerns about safety / security particularly with Wells Terrace closure 3

Concerns about safety (length of wait) 1

Proposed frequency too high 1

Road too narrow, not suitable for these buses 1

17

Route 132 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 434 (88.5%) supported the proposal and 62 (12.5%) were opposed. 1580 had no opinion and 1189 did not answer this question. There was no strong pattern for local opposition to route 132.

18

There were 18 comments of general support for proposals to introduce route 132 at night, with 25 respondents suggesting that a more frequent service than every 30 minutes is needed. Three respondents commented that having this route running at night would be useful for visitors to the O2 arena, while a further four cited usefulness for nights out generally. There were eight comments showing concern that a night 132 service would duplicate parts of other night bus routes, with route 486 frequently cited.

Route 132





Useful for O2 visitors 3







Other suggestion 7

Should be 24/7 6

Negative comments Route duplicates another 8


19

Route H32 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 347 (87%) supported the proposal and 50 (13%) were opposed. 1634 had no opinion and 1234 did not answer this question. Most of the local opposition to route H32 was from residents on Vicarage Farm Road.

20

There was a relatively low number of comments about H32. Only ‘General support’ saw more than two comments.

Route H32



Should be 24/7 2


Neutral comments / suggestion Not relevant to the proposal 2


Re-position certain bus stops 1



21

Route 158 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 440 (87%) supported the proposal and 65 (13%) were opposed. 1565 had no opinion and 1195 did not answer this question. The main local opposition against the proposal was concentrated around two areas – Leyton and Higham Hill.

22

Respondents made sixteen comments about needing a more frequent service than every 30 minutes. There were 12 comments of general support, while seven comments talked about a lack of adequate provision for night-time transport at present. There were 11 comments of a negative nature. Four of these were about noise and other disturbance caused by a new bus service, while three were concerned with the safety implication of having such a long wait at a bus stop at night.

Route 158











Should be 24/7 9


Other suggestion 3




Concern about overcrowding (length of wait) 1


Route duplicates others – this one is not needed 1

Not enough demand for it 1

23

Route 34 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 462 (87%) supported the proposal and 70 (13%) were opposed. 1588 had no opinion and 1145 did not answer this question. The greatest concentration of opposition to the proposal for route 34 existed around Oakleigh Road North and Oakleigh Road South.

24

We received 53 separate comments for bus route 34. The twenty-two positive comments covered general support, usefulness for night workers, the lack of service currently, how a 34 bus route would be a good alternative to a taxi and other themes. There were ten negative comments, half of which expressed concern about overnight noise in residential areas. There was also some concern about safety when waiting for a bus due to the low frequency at this time, and feelings that the route wouldn’t experience enough demand to be worth it. Seven comments were about needing a more frequent service than the one proposed.

Route 34








Useful if N26 ever develops problems 1

Neutral comments / suggestions More frequent service needed 7

Other suggestion 6



Should be 24/7 2




Concern about road width 1

25

Route 307 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 383 (87%) supported the proposal and 59 (13%) were opposed. 1600 had no opinion and 1223 did not answer this question. There was a relatively small number of opponents to the 307 living on the route.

26

Excessive noise and vibrations due to bus route 307 operating at night was the subject of three of the five negative comments about this route. One of these comments also talked about privacy issues created by passengers on double decker buses on this route being able to see through bedroom windows. There were eight comments of general support, while five were about the 307 complementing the Northern line Night Tube service. A request for a more frequent service than that proposed was the subject of seven comments.

Route 307



Compliments Night Tube well 5



Useful for increasing safety 2





Should be 24/7 or Fri, Sat and Sun 3


Other suggestion 1


Negative comments Concern about noise, type of bus used on route, privacy or other disturbance 3

Concern at length of wait (safety) 1

Concerns about road surface on route 1

27

Route 183 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 398 (87%) supported the proposal and 62 (13%) were opposed. 1591 had no opinion and 1214 did not answer this question. Although there was some local opposition in Pinner, most of the local opposition to route 183 came from the East end of the route.

28

We received a relatively low number of comments about route 183. Seven respondents made a comment expressing general support for the proposal, while there were a further seven comments about needing a more frequent service. Negative comments included concern about noise and vibrations, and suggestions that a new route from Willesden to Pinner and a night 210 route would be better alternatives.

Route 183







Other suggestion 3

Should be 24/7 or Fri, Sat and Sun 2



Route 183 areas could be better served by other bus services 2


29

Route 319

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 463 (86%) supported the proposal and 73 (14%) were opposed. 1553 had no opinion and 1176 did not answer this question. Northcote Road and the side streets near it provided a concentrated area of local opposition to route 319.

30

Thirty of the 46 positive comments about route 319 were general support or statements that there is little night service at present in the area. There were 26 negative comments. Most of these (16) were about noise and disturbance for residents on the route. Ten comments were suggestions to change the route, usually involving extending the route to the South or covering different parts of South London near the exiting route.

Route 319












Should be 24/7 7



Other suggestion 5







Comment about bus striking a parked vehicle 2

31

Route 296

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 348 (86%) supported the proposal and 55 (14%) were opposed. 1629 had no opinion and 1233 did not answer this question. Most of the respondents living near route 296 supported the proposal.

32

The most common comment received about the proposal to introduce bus route 296 was about nearby routes covering the same area. Five respondents made such a comment, four of them stating that the alternative routes were better. These respondents did not agree however, each of them suggesting a different bus route. Overall, there was a relatively small number of comments made about this route.

Route 296






Neutral comments / suggestion Should be 24/7 3



Negative comments Route duplicates another 5

33

Route 486 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 442 (86%) supported the proposal and 70 (14%) were opposed. 1559 had no opinion and 1194 did not answer this question. Many of the local responses for route 486 were from the Charlton area, especially around the Charlton Church Lane.

34

There were 16 comments of general support for the proposals to introduce the 486, while 12 further comments contained statements setting out benefits such as safety and convenience. There were fifty-nine comments classed as neutral or suggestions, with just under a third of them asking for a service more frequent than every 30 minutes. Sixteen comments were suggestions to alter the route in some way. Eleven respondents suggested that the route wasn’t needed, with existing or potential alternatives cited as better options. Respondents made nine comments expressing concern about noise and other disturbance that the 486 would bring.

Route 486







Useful for accessing the hospital 1





Should be 24/7 9


Other suggestion 5


Negative comments Not needed – better alternatives are available 11

Concern about noise, type of bus used on route, privacy or other disturbance 9

Road too narrow, not suitable for these buses 2

35

Route H37 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 420 (86%) supported the proposal and 67 (14%) were opposed. 1594 had no opinion and 1184 did not answer this question. All local opponents to the H37 were clustered within 0.5km of the route, particularly around St. John’s Road, South Street, Richmond Road and St. Margarets Road.

36

Twenty-eight comments made about H37 were general support for the proposals. Respondents also made 11 comments about a lack of adequate service in the area at the moment, while there were nine comments about various benefits that a night H37 would bring. Respondents made 14 comments about needing a more frequent than every 30 minutes service, while four suggested that the route be changed in some way. Five of the eighty-six comments were negative. Four of these were about noise or other disturbance to residents.

Route H37












Should be 24/7 3

Other suggestion 3




Not needed - plenty of other transport options available 1

37

Route E1 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 384 (84%) supported the proposal and 72 (16%) were opposed. 1587 had no opinion and 1222 did not answer this question. Much of the local opposition to route E1 came from residents on Sutherland Avenue, Sutherland Road and Drayton Bridge Road.

38

Comments about the E1 were categorised into Positive, Neutral and Negative in similar numbers. Thirteen respondents expressed general support, while 12 asked for a more frequent service. Nine respondents expressed concern about noise or other disturbance, and while three mentioned a need for the E1 as there is an inadequate service at present, four commented that there isn’t enough demand overall for this service. Another negative comment involved fears of overcrowding due to long waits at bus stops during the night. Two respondents made such a comment.

Route E1











Other suggestion 1







39

Route W3 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route 567 (82%) of respondents supported the proposal and 122 (18%) were opposed. 1438 had no opinion and 1138 did not answer this question. The strongest opposition to the proposed route was on Elmfield Avenue, Rokesly Avenue and Ferme Park Road.

40

We received 69 negative comments about the proposed W3 service. These focused on concerns on noise, the type of bus to be used on the route and other disturbance. Respondents also considered there was a lack of demand or that other night bus services in the area are available.

There were 59 positive comments including general support and several comments highlighting the safety improvement a night bus brings. Comments and suggestions of a more neutral nature (62) included making the service more frequent or altering / extending the route.

Route W3






Compliments Night Tube well 2






Suggestion about W3 timetabling unrelated to frequency 5

Should be 24/7 or also on event nights at Alexandra Palace 5


Other suggestion 3

Indicator board required at Finsbury Park station 2


Negative comments

Concern about noise, type of bus used on route or other disturbance 45



Other night routes in area are sufficient - no need for more 5


Concerns about safety / security particularly with Wells Terrace closure 3


41

Route 114

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 437 (82%) supported the proposal and 94 (18%) were opposed. 1602 had no opinion and 1132 did not answer this question. Most local opponents to the 114 live very close to or on the route – for example Mollison Way and Watling Avenue.

42

The 49 negative comments about the proposed route 114 service were largely made up of concerns about noise, and a range of other effects that would cause disturbance to residents.

Respondents who were positive about the proposals (34) gave a variety of reasons including limited transport options in the area currently. More neutral comments and suggestions (38) included altering or extending the route and having a more frequent service.

Route 114


Positive comments No / limited service at present 10

General support 6



Good alternative to the car 2


Useful for getting to airport (link with other services) 2


Useful for mobility impaired passengers 1



Should be 24/7 7


Other suggestion 4




Concern about safety - more security required 1

Negative comments

Concern about noise, type of bus used on route, or other disturbance 33




Concern about road surface on route 2

General oppose 1

43

3.2 Bus routes with a proposed new night service, seven nights a week There were two routes with proposed new seven nights a week services with a frequency of every 30 mins. The response to the proposals is shown in the table below.


The questionnaire asked if respondents supported the proposals for each route (yes/no/no opinion). Respondents were asked to skip the question or tick no opinion if the route was not relevant to them; the table excludes these two categories. Within the further analysis of each bus route that follows, there is at least one local map of the bus route with respondents’ postcodes plotted on it. Each dot on the map represents a respondent who stated support or opposition to the proposed bus route. The dot is positioned at the centre of the area covered by the respondent’s postcode. Overall responses were very positive. Both routes attracted a high level of support of around 90%. Respondents were also asked for any comments about the proposed routes. These have been coded and frequency counts calculated. These are set out in the following pages also. The two bus routes are presented in descending percentage order of support for the proposals.

10% (59)

9% (54)

90% (507)

91% (570)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

238

222

Do you support the proposed new night service, seven nights a week for routes 222 and 238?

Yes

No

44

Route 222 Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 570 (91%) supported the proposal and 54 (9%) were opposed. 1848 had no opinion and 793 did not answer this question. Most of the local support for the 222 came from the North end of the route, towards the Uxbridge terminus.

45

There was a considerable degree of support for route 222. Twenty-seven respondents made comments of general support, while benefits to people wishing to travel to Heathrow for leisure and work were also mentioned by some.

Seven respondents would like to see a more frequent service. One respondent commented that there would not be enough demand for this route due to improved and new services elsewhere in the area.

Route 222





Useful for getting to Heathrow 7


Useful for students of the University 4



Would reduce noise as students would be on the bus and not walking 1

Neutral comments / suggestions More frequent service needed 7



Other suggestion 3

Comment about current service 3

Negative comments Not enough demand for it 1

46

Route 238

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about this route, 507 (90%) supported the proposal and 59 (10%) were opposed. 1863 had no opinion and 836 did not answer this question. Most of the local opposition for the 238 came from on or close to the B165 - Portway and Plashet Road.

47

Almost a third of the 74 comments made about the proposal to introduce route 238 expressed general support. A further four mentioned that there is a lack of adequate provision at present. Twelve respondents suggested an alteration to the route, while there were seven negative comments in total. Three of the respondents who made these negative comments expressed concern about noise and disturbance to residents.

Route 238







Good alternative to the car 1

Comment that it's cheaper than the night tube 1

Useful for getting to the airport (to fly) 1





Other suggestion 3

Make it weekends only, at least initially 2


Comment about current service 1

Negative comments

Concern about noise, type of bus used on route or other disturbance 3

General oppose 2

Concern about safety due to length of wait 1


48

3.3 Bus routes with changes to frequencies at weekends where some passengers will transfer to Night Tube running at least every 10 minutes There were 16 main routes in this part of the proposals, six of them with distinct inner and outer sections. The response to the proposals is shown in the table below.


52% (307)

42% (222)

41% (217)

40% (191)

39% (214)

35% (185)

35% (137)

33% (135)

31% (141)

31% (162)

31% (154)

31% (141)

30% (120)

30% (144)

29% (133)

29% (139)

29% (122)

29% (128)

29% (153)

29% (141)

24% (117)

22% (103)

48% (278)

58% (304)

59% (306)

60% (282)

61% (341)

65% (344)

65% (259)

67% (268)

69% (310)

69% (366)

69% (349)

69% (321)

70% (274)

70% (335)

70% (317)

71% (338)

71% (300)

71% (315)

71% (376)

71% (349)

76% (365)

78% (363)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

94

N91

88

N20

134

14

N98 (outer section)

N97

N8 (outer section)

N155

N73

N38 (inner section)

N98 (inner section)

N9 (inner section)

N38 (outer section)

N207 (inner section)

N5

N8 (inner section)

N29 (inner section)

N29 (outer section)

N9 (outer section)

N207 (outer section)

Do you support the proposals to change the frequency at weekends on bus routes where some passengers will transfer

to Night Tube?

Yes

No

49

The questionnaire asked if respondents supported the proposals for each route (yes/no/no opinion). Respondents were asked to skip the question or tick no opinion if the route was not relevant to them: the table excludes these two categories. Overall responses were positive but some routes, particularly route 94, attracted high levels of opposition.

Respondents were also asked for any comments about the proposed routes. These have been coded and frequency counts calculated. These are set out in the following pages also. Bus routes are presented in descending percentage order of support for the proposals. Where a bus route has an inner and an outer section, the section with the highest level of support is used to represent that bus route in the ordering.

50

Route N207

Current

frequency Proposed frequency

Route 207 inner section Every 7-8 mins

Every 10 mins

Route 207 outer section Every 30 mins

Every 20 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N207 (inner section), 338 (71%) supported the proposal and 139 (29%) were opposed. 1423 had no opinion and 1365 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N207 (outer section), 363 (78%) supported the proposal and 103 (22%) were opposed. 1426 had no opinion and 1373 did not answer this question. The majority of respondents who made comments about route N207 made comments of a negative position. Twelve respondents made a point about the proposed frequency for the inner section not being high enough, while a further six comments asked for a more frequent service without specifying which section they were referring to. Seven respondents expressed concern about overcrowding due to the length of the wait. A further twelve comments were made giving reasons why the proposed changes shouldn’t be made. There were 8 positive comments, most of which expressed support for the outer section proposal to increase bus frequency.

51

Route N207


Positive comments General support (outer section) 6

General support (inner section) 2



Comment about existing service 4

Other suggestion 4

Frequency should be reduced further (inner section) 1

Assess passenger numbers after launch of Night Tube 1

Negative comments More frequent service needed (inner section) 12


More frequent service needed (unspecified section) 6

Bus serves convenient areas that the tube does not 3

More frequent service needed (outer section) 2

Impact on people on low income/ unfair on bus pass holders 2

Concern about when there is disruption on the Night Tube 1

Bus better than tube (no reason given) 1

Proposal is cynical way for TfL to reach targets 1

Bus better for safety 1

Bus better for safety for women 1

52

Route N9

Current


Route N9 inner section Every 10 mins

Every 15 mins

Route N9 outer section Every 20 mins

Every 15 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N9 (inner section), 335 (70%) supported the proposal and 144 (30%) were opposed. 1429 had no opinion and 1357 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N9 (outer section), 365 (76%) supported the proposal and 117 (24%) were opposed. 1434 had no opinion and 1349 did not answer this question. The proposal to increase the frequency on the outer section of the N9 route attracted some supportive comments, as did the proposed reduction of frequency on the inner section. Most of the rest of the comments were negative, with requests for a more frequent service on the inner section (10 comments), comments about the bus being more convenient than the Night Tube in this area (7) and concerns about the negative impact on night workers (5) being the most frequently mentioned. Four respondents asked for a change to the route the bus takes, each of them making a different suggestion.

53

Route N9


Positive comments General support (outer section) 6

General support (unspecified section) 5

General support (inner section) 3




Other suggestion 3

Not relevant to proposal 2

Comment about running inner / outer services causing confusion 1

Prefer the tube when available 1

Negative comments More frequent service needed (inner section) 10

Bus serves areas that aren't served as well by the Night Tube 7

Negative impact on night workers 5

Impact on people on low income / unfair on bus pass holders, or other cost issues 4

Positive impact on night workers 3

More frequent service needed (Section unspecified) 2

General oppose 1


Concern about overcrowding 1

Impact on mobility impaired passengers / people who can’t use Tube 1

Impact on nights out 1




54

Route N29

Current


Route N29 inner section Every 3-4 mins

Every 5 mins


Every 10 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N29 (inner section), 376 (71%) supported the proposal and 153 (29%) were opposed. 1386 had no opinion and 1350 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N29 (outer section), 349 (71%) supported the proposal and 141 (29%) were opposed. 1409 had no opinion and 1366 did not answer this question. The most frequently mentioned comment about the route N29 proposal was a request to increase the frequency of the service. Six respondents didn’t specify a particular section, while two cited the inner section and two cited the outer section. Five respondents made a point about the bus serving needs better than the Tube in terms of convenience – taking them closer to home, for example. Three respondents made a comment expressing general support. The most commonly given and relevant neutral comment was about the existing, daytime service.

55

Route N29



Neutral comments / suggestion Comment about existing service 3



Frequency should be reduced further 1


Comment about consultation 1

Other suggestion 1

Negative comments More frequent service needed (unspecified section) 6





More frequent service needed (inner section) 2


Impact on night workers 2






56

Route N8

Current


Route N8 inner section Every 7-8 mins

Every 10 mins


Every 20 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N8 (inner section), 315 (71%) supported the proposal and 128 (29%) were opposed. 1461 had no opinion and 1361 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N8 (outer section), 310 (69%) supported the proposal and 141 (31%) were opposed. 1454 had no opinion and 1360 did not answer this question. Twenty-eight of the 42 comments made about the N8 were negative, with concern about the lower frequency being the comment made most often. Four respondents also mentioned potential for overcrowding due to the longer wait, and three talked about financial matters with Tube fares being higher than bus fares at the hub of their concerns. There was one comment that was positive about the proposed changes.

57

Route N8















General oppose 1

Concern about noise and disturbance to residents 1




58

Route N5

Current


Route N5 Every 10 mins Every 15 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N5, 300 (71%) supported the proposal and 122 (29%) were opposed. 1469 had no opinion and 1374 did not answer this question. Nine respondents commented that they would like to see a more frequent service than every 15 minutes. Three respondents expressed concern about increased overcrowding due to the proposed lower frequency. Three respondents gave comments expressing general support for the proposal, while the most frequently cited neutral comment was about the existing N5 service.

Route N5






Will switch to using Northern Line 1



Negative comments More frequent service needed 9


General oppose 2






59

Route N38

Current



Every 7-8 mins


Every 15 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N38 (inner section), 321 (69%) supported the proposal and 141 (31%) were opposed. 1436 had no opinion and 1367 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N38 (outer section), 317 (70%) supported the proposal and 133 (30%) were opposed. 1444 had no opinion and 1371 did not answer this question. The N38 proposals attracted 46 comments in total. Eight respondents made a comment about needing a more frequent service, without specifying which section they were referring to. One further respondent made a similar point, aiming it at the outer section specifically. Eight comments were made about the route serving areas that the Night Tube won’t serve as usefully. Among the comments classed as neutral or suggestions, three respondents gave views about the existing service, while there were two comments with suggestions to extend the route to Highams Park and Chingford areas.

60

Route N38





Other suggestion 2

















Concern that if Night Tube doesn't go ahead, night bus services will still be affected 1

61

Route N98

Current



Every 15 mins


Every 30 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N98 (inner section), 274 (70%) supported the proposal and 120 (30%) were opposed. 1483 had no opinion and 1388 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N98 (outer section), 259 (65%) supported the proposal and 137 (35%) were opposed. 1483 had no opinion and 1386 did not answer this question. There were 14 comments about needing a more frequent service on the N98, with six of

them focussing on the outer section specifically. Another frequently occurring theme among

the comments for route N98 was related to how bus users could be penalised financially if

buses were reduced and replaced by the Night Tube. Five respondents made a comment

around this theme.

The two positive comments were of general support.

62

Route N98


Positive comments General support (inner section) 1

General support overall 1



Every 30 mins for both inner and outer sections is sufficient 1






Negative comments More frequent service needed (outer section) 6

More frequent service needed (unspecified section) 5



Bus serves convenient areas that the tube does not 3




General oppose 1




63

Route N73

Current



Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N73, 349 (69%) supported the proposal and 154 (31%) were opposed. 1409 had no opinion and 1353 did not answer this question. Just under a third (15) of the 49 comments about the N73 proposal were requests for a more frequent service than that proposed. A further 11 comments were about the bus serving areas better than the Tube. Five comments were about the increased level of safety on buses, two of which centred on safety for women. Three respondents expressed support for the proposal, while another three suggested route changes would be useful.

Route 73
















Concern that if Night Tube doesn't go ahead, night bus services will still be affected 1

64

Route N155

Current


Route N155 Every 7-8 mins Every 15 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N155, 366 (69%) of respondents supported the proposal and 162 (31%) were opposed. 1402 had no opinion and 1335 did not answer this question. The most frequently made comment about the N155 was about needing a more frequent service than every 15 minutes. Concerns about safety were also prominent. Six respondents made a point about the bus being better for safety and three expressed concern about general safety due to waiting a long time for a bus. Three respondents were positive about the proposal, and of the respondents who offered comments of a more neutral nature, seven suggested a route alteration, with five of them suggesting an extension so the bus additionally serves Sutton.

65

Route 155








Bus route parallels the Northern Line in some areas 1

Will use the Northern Line instead 1

Other suggestion 1

Assess passenger numbers after launch of Night tube 1











66

Route N97

Current



Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N97, 268 (67%) supported the proposal and 135 (33%) were opposed. 1476 had no opinion and 1386 did not answer this question. Ten respondents made comments asking for a more frequent service on the N97. Several other negative comments and impacts of the proposed new frequency were made, including references to the inconvenience of using the Tube compared with the bus in this area, impact on mobility impaired passengers or other people who can’t use the Tube easily, impact on night workers and safety concerns. Only one respondent left a positive comment about the proposal, although two respondents suggested that the frequency should be reduced further.

67

Route N97







Bus route parallels the Piccadilly Line in some areas 2

Other suggestion 2












68

Route 14

Current


Route 14 Every 10 mins Every 12 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route 14, 344 (65%) of respondents supported the proposal and 185 (35%) were opposed. 1430 had no opinion and 1306 did not answer this question. Route 14, running from Warren Street to Putney Heath, had a relatively high number of comments made about it – 112 in total. The majority, 83, were negative comments and concerns. 28 respondents made a comment that this bus follows a route where the Tube won’t be running overnight, and 25 stated that a more frequent service than the one proposed is necessary. A smaller number of respondents cited concerns to do with safety, potential for overcrowding and financial implications for passengers. There were 23 neutral comments or other suggestions, 11 of which were about the current service. Six respondents expressed general support for the proposed change.

69

Route 14







Other suggestion 2


Negative comments Bus serves areas that aren't served as well by the Night Tube 28



General oppose 4








70

Route 134

Current



Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route 134, 341 (61%) supported the proposal and 214 (39%) were opposed. 1396 had no opinion and 1314 did not answer this question. 139 comments were made about route 134. Thirty-four of them were about needing a more frequent service, while 24 respondents made a comment about the extra convenience offered by the bus that the Tube can’t match. Twelve respondents made a comment about financial matters. Eleven respondents talked about the impact of the proposal while Tufnell Park station is closed, with ideas of how this impact could be removed or lessened. Three respondents expressed general support for the proposal, while six commented about the existing bus service.

71

Route 134



Comment of existing service 6










Comment on impact of Tufnell Park station closure 11


General oppose 5






72

Route N20

Current



Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N20, 282 (60%) respondents supported the proposal and 191 (40%) were opposed. 1436 had no opinion and 1356 did not answer this question. The most commonly received comment about the N20, by some distance, was a request to increase the frequency than that proposed. This was made by 39 respondents. Thirteen respondents mentioned cost issues and how bus users would be disadvantaged, while 10 respondents expressed concern about safety during the longer wait. Other safety issues were also cited. Comments of general support were made by four respondents.

73

Route N20














Comment on impact of Tufnell Park station closure 4





General oppose 1


74

Route 88

Current



Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route 88, 306 (59%) supported the proposal and 217 (41%) were opposed. 1413 had no opinion and 1329 did not answer this question. The proposal to change the frequency of buses on route 88 was met with comments of general support from four respondents. Five respondents made a comment about the existing service, while the vast majority of the rest of the comments were of a negative nature. Twenty-eight respondents made mention of the lower frequency and their desire for it to be increased, while 13 covered themes around the bus serving areas that aren’t served as well by the Night Tube. Eight respondents expressed concern about the length of the wait between buses and the impact on safety.

Route 88




Not relevant to the consultation 2







General oppose 3





75

Route N91

Current



Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N91, 304 (58%) supported the proposal and 222 (42%) were opposed. 1387 had no opinion and 1352 did not answer this question. The N91 is another route that attracted more than 100 comments – 128 in total. Forty-four of them were requests for a higher frequency service, while 21 respondents said that the route covers areas that aren’t served as well by the Night Tube. Cost of travel was another concern – 12 respondents mentioned this. Four respondents expressed general support for the proposal, while there were a few comments classed as neutral. Four of these were about the existing service, while three were suggestions to change the route – one of these suggestions was to extend the route, one was to shorten it, and the other was to reroute the bus through Turnpike Lane bus station.

76

Route N91








Other suggestion 1








General oppose 3






77

Route 94

Current



Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N73, 278 (48%) supported the proposal and 307 (52%) were opposed. 1388 had no opinion and 1292 did not answer this question. The proposal to change the frequency of route 94 attracted 284 comments, the vast majority of them negative. Ninety respondents asked for a higher frequency, 57 mentioned the convenience of the bus that the Night Tube can’t match, 24 mentioned financial impact with respect to the added cost that using the Night Tube brings, while respondents also expressed safety concerns numerous times. Five respondents supported the proposal, while 14 made a comment about the existing service. Respondents made other suggestions including altering the route in some way and assessing demand a period of time after the introduction of the Night Tube before any frequency changes are made.

78

Route 94





Other suggestion 4

Assess passenger numbers after launch of Night tube 3












General oppose 4

Impact on teenagers 1

79

3.4 Other proposed changes There were eight routes with other proposed changes. The response to the proposals is shown in the table below.


The questionnaire asked if respondents supported the proposals for each route (yes/no/no opinion). Respondents were asked to skip the question or tick no opinion if the route was not relevant to them: the table excludes these two categories.

The highest levels of opposition were on route N47 (13% or 72 respondents were not in support) and route N1 (20% or 85 respondents were not in support).

Respondents were also asked for any comments about the proposed routes. These have been coded and frequency counts calculated. These are set out in the following pages also. Bus routes are presented in descending percentage order of support for the proposals, with routes 47, N47 and N199 combined as proposals for those routes are strongly linked.

20% (85)

13% (72)

12% (59)

12% (59)

11% (45)

10% (59)

10% (37)

9% (42)

80% (341)

87% (467)

88% (445)

88% (447)

89% (359)

90% (509)

90% (347)

91% (435)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

N1

N47

188

N199

N86

47

N381

N133

Do you support the proposed changes to bus route 47, N47, N199, 188, N1, N86, N133, N381?

Yes

No

80

Route N133

Proposed changes

Current frequency

Proposed frequency

Route N133

Extended from Mitcham to

Morden station via day route 118.

Every 20 mins Every 20 mins

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N133, 435 (91%) supported the proposal and 42 (9%) were opposed. 1448 had no opinion and 1340 did not answer this question. There were 14 comments of general support for the proposal. In addition, three respondents made a comment about how it will be useful for people working at night, while two respondents mentioned usefulness for nights out. Two respondents mentioned increased connectivity for onward journeys. Four respondents commented that they would like a more frequent service, while another four asked for the route to be extended - three of them suggested extensions to the south, while the other suggested an extension from the current terminus at Liverpool Street to Shoreditch. There were no comments about the N133 that were categorised as negative.

Route N133




Good to have connections with other bus routes from Morden 2


Few other transport options and private transport ownership low in this area 1

Makes journey home safer 1




Other suggestion 3


Negative comments - -

81

Route N381

Proposed changes

Current frequency

Proposed frequency

Route N381 Minor re-route to

serve Canada Water bus station


Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N381, 347 (90%) supported the proposal and 37 (10%) were opposed. 1490 had no opinion and 1391 did not answer this question. Compared with other bus routes in this consultation, there were relatively very few comments about the N381 proposal. There were six positive comments overall, three of which were statements of general support and two of which were comments about the bus being useful for serving new developments in the area. Two respondents suggested that the N381 should run more frequently than every half an hour. One respondent opposed the proposal.

N381



Useful for new developments in the area 2

Useful for young people 1



Extend to serve New Cross Gate and Brockley 1

Suggestion about bus timetabling unrelated to frequency 1

Negative comments General oppose 1

82

Routes 47, N47 and N199

Proposed changes

Current frequency

Proposed frequency

Route 47

Becomes a new 24hr service. New links for growing

night time economy around

Shoreditch

No change to daytime

frequency

Every 30 mins all nights

Route N47

Replaced by 24hr route 47 and new N199, providing extra capacity

between the City / London Bridge / Canada Water

Every 30 mins Sun-Thur

nights, every 20 mins Fri/Sat

nights

-

Route N199

New night route replaces part of

N47 and provides new service via day route 199

-



nights

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route 47, 509 (90%) supported the proposal and 59 (10%) were opposed. 1381 had no opinion and 1316 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N47, 467 (87%) supported the proposal and 72 (13%) were opposed. 1392 had no opinion and 1334 did not answer this question. Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N199, 447 (88%) supported the proposal and 59 (12%) were opposed. 1414 had no opinion and 1345 did not answer this question. The proposals for routes 47, N47 and N199 are strongly linked, so analysis of respondent comments has been amalgamated. There was a considerable amount of support for the proposals, with 65 comments of general support. There were nine comments of general opposition, and 26 comments about needing to increase frequency. Within the comments classed as neutral or suggestions, 12 respondents made a suggestion to extend or alter route 47, and five respondents did the same for route N199.

83

Routes 47, N47, N199


Positive comments 47 - General support for plan 30

N199 - General support for plan 21

N47 - General support for plan 14

N199 - Support as area served is getting busy 1

Overall - Good for young people 1

Overall - Good for Canada Water / Surrey Quays developments 1

Neutral comments / suggestion 47 - Extend / alter route 12

N199 - Extend / alter route 5

N199 / 199 - Other suggestion or question 4

Overall - Timetables should be planned carefully 4

47 - Currently not a reliable service 1

N199 - Route should run 24h 1

N47 - Criticism of current reliability 1

Overall - N47 and N199 are very similar routes 1

Negative comments 47 - Concern about frequency 13

N199 - Concern about frequency 10

N47 - General oppose plan 5

N47 - Retain and change routing 4

N47 - Concern about withdrawal, this route helps take me closer to home 4

47 - General oppose plan 3

N47 - Retain and increase frequency 3

Overall - comment not relevant to proposal 2

47 - Concern about safety (length of wait) 1

N199 - Concern about noise and disturbance to residents 1

N199 - General oppose plan 1

N199 - General oppose plan, will make route longer 1

84

Route N86

Proposed changes

Current frequency

Proposed frequency

Route N86 Frequency

increase on Fri/at nights




nights

Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N86, 359 (89%) supported the proposal and 45 (11%) were opposed. 1481 had no opinion and 1380 did not answer this question. Five respondents made a comment of general support for the proposal to increase the Fri/Sat night frequency on the N86. A further four respondents asked for the frequency to be increased on other days of the week. Six respondents made requests for other night routes to be introduced in the areas that the N86 serves. Two of these respondents suggested that the N86 could be either fully or partially replaced. Two respondents made negative comments – concerns about a lack of demand and overcrowding on part of the route.

Route N86



Will assist with connections with the Night Tube at Stratford 1



Add more services to area covered by the N86 6

More frequent service needed Sun - Thur 4


Negative comments Not enough demand to justify increase in frequency 1

Concern about overcrowding (between Stratford and Ilford) 1

85

Route 188

Proposed changes

Current frequency

Proposed frequency

Route 188 Minor re-route to

serve Canada Water bus station


Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route 188, 445 (88%) supported the proposal and 59 (12%) were opposed. 1410 had no opinion and 1351 did not answer this question. Forty-three comments were made about bus route 188. Almost a third were about the frequency not being high enough, while there were also four comments with concerns about overcrowding. Six respondents made a comment of general support, while three expressed general opposition. Four respondents said they would like to see the 188 route extended back to the Euston area from its current terminus at Russell Square.

Route 188



Useful for new Canada Water developments 1




Useful for events at the O2 2

Suggestion about bus timetabling not related to frequency 1

Useful for young people 1

Useful in the event of disruption on the Jubilee Line 1

Comment about consultation process 1

Negative comments Concern about overcrowding 4

General oppose 3

Concern about noise and disturbance 1

86

Route N1

Proposed changes

Current frequency

Proposed frequency

Route N1

Re-routed via Evelyn Way in

Deptford, as N199 would serve

Plough Way and Grove Street


nights. Every 20 mins Fri/Sat

nights


Overall of the respondents who expressed an opinion about route N1, 341 (80%) supported the proposal and 85 (20%) were opposed. 1455 had no opinion and 1384 did not answer this question. Fifteen of the 49 comments made about the proposals for route N1 were about needing a more frequent service. There was also some concern about overcrowding, while 11 respondents asked for the route to be changed - most of these said they would like to see the bus serve Canada Water. Three respondents offered comments of general support.

Route N1






Other suggestion 3


Question about routing 2

Development work in area will create employment and make route busier 2

Comment about usefulness for workers 1



General oppose 2

87

3.5 Further comments on the proposals The questionnaire asked “Do you have any further comments on our proposals?” We received 1340 comments in response. A few of these were ambiguous and may have been referring to the Night Tube. Comments shown in the table below usually state which mode the respondent was referring to – where no mode is shown, the respondent may have been referring to the Night Tube. There were 214 comments of general support. 168 respondents made comments suggesting the introduction of a new Night Bus route or routes. Most respondents mentioned a route number, whereas a few were less specific citing just an area or areas that they wanted a Night Bus to serve. 160 respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the bus frequency proposed. These respondents typically did not specify which route they were referring to, though respondents usually did this in earlier questions analysed and presented separately. 131 respondents made comments not relevant to the Night Buses proposal that didn’t fit in any other categories. These include comments such as “n/a”, “none” and a small number of comments that were difficult to interpret. 77 respondents made a comment about cost issues, how Night Buses can be a cost effective way of travelling at night, and how some of the proposals disadvantage passengers financially. 77 respondents made a comment about a bus route not mentioned in the proposals. 75 respondents made a general comment about Night Bus services in the proposals. These comments covered topics such as suggestions of better passenger information and facilities, safety and security, timetabling, reliability, comments about bus drivers and more.

88

Comment


General support overall scheme 214

Suggestion of a new Night Bus route 168

Unhappy with Night Bus frequency proposed - too low 160

Not relevant to Night Buses proposal or Night Tube 131


Comment about a bus route not mentioned in proposals 77

General comment about Night Bus services in the proposals 75

Bus routes serve areas that Night Tube doesn't serve 59

Comment about the added safety that buses offer 54

Comment about Night Tube 43

Concern about noise and disturbance at night / pollution and effects on health 41

Concern about long wait for a bus and safety implications of this 40

Comment about the consultation or more info required 39

General oppose overall scheme 29

Introduce Night Tube and / or Night Bus changes, then review demand and perhaps make changes later 29

General concern about lack of services in my area 26

Buses are useful for the safety of women 13

Buses are useful for night workers 12

Focus shouldn't just be on weekends 10

Comment about Night Bus availability at times of Night Tube disruption 9

Comment about the cost of implementing the proposals and long term running costs 8

Some people can't use or don't like to use the Tube (reason not given) so these proposals make it harder 8

Proposals will cut down on taxi journeys / car journeys / traffic 7

Overall scheme useful for night workers 6

Concern about reduction of night bus services for mobility impaired people 2

Removes worry about aiming to catch the last bus or last tube 2

Unhappy with Night Bus frequency proposed - too high 1

89

3.6 Profile of residents

We asked respondents to say in what capacity they were responding to the consultation. Almost 90% said they were a local resident on the route, while 60% said they were a user of the night bus/tube service. 56% said they were a likely user of the night bus / tube service. Respondents could say they were responding in more than one capacity.

As a localresident onthe route

As a user oftransport

services inLondon

As a user ofthe nightbus/tubeservice

As a likelyuser of the

nightbus/tubeservice

Other

Number of replies 2682 2240 1802 1695 181

% of replies 89.3 74.6 60.0 56.4 6.0

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

In what capacity are you responding to this consultation? (please tick all that apply)

Other includes Representative of an educational establishment, Representative of a business, Representative of a community or voluntary organisation, Elected representative, and others

90

We asked how members of the public found out about the consultation. Over 60% said they received an email, while just under 10% said they heard about it on social media. 4.8% heard about it in a letter.

EmailSocialMedia

OtherNo

answerLetter

TfLwebsiteadvert

Press Total

Number of replies 2036 300 302 263 157 128 80 3249

% of replies 62.7 9.2 9.3 8.1 4.8 3.9 2.5 100

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

How did you hear about the consultation?

91

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

This section of the report provides responses to the consultation from the following stakeholders

Local authorities and elected representatives (London Councils, Local Authority officers and councillors, Assembly Members and Members of Parliament)

London TravelWatch and Transport User Groups

Businesses

Community and resident groups

92

Summary of responses from Local Authorities and elected representatives In general there is support for the proposals. Local authorities and elected representative responses reflect those of the public regarding routes with frequency reductions. Bus routes with proposed new Friday and Saturday night services Where mentioned by local authorities and elected representatives these routes are supported. Routes W3 and 114, which had the highest levels of resident opposition were not mentioned. Bus routes with proposed new night service, seven nights a week Where mentioned by local authorities and elected representatives these routes are supported. Bus routes with changes to frequencies at weekends where some passengers will transfer to Night Tube Frequency increases were supported by local authorities and elected representatives. In general frequency reductions were opposed. The highest level of resident opposition for routes with frequency reductions was on routes 94, N91, 88 and N20. This was reflected in the responses by local authorities and elected representatives:

Route 94 frequency reduction was opposed by Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham and

Kensington & Chelsea

Route N91 frequency reduction was opposed by Enfield, Islington, Joanne McCartney

AM

Route 88 frequency reduction was opposed by Lambeth

Route N20 was opposed by Andrew Dismore AM

Westminster opposed any night bus route from the West End Partnership area where the frequency was less than every 15 minutes. Similarly Kensington & Chelsea suggested that no central London night bus services should have a frequency of below four per hour. Other stated opposition to routes with frequency reductions included:

Hackney opposed routes N8 inner, N29 inner and outer, N38 inner and outer, N73

Hammersmith and Fulham opposed routes N9 inner, 14, N97 and N207 (inner)

Lambeth opposed route N155

Kensington & Chelsea opposed routes N9, N97 and N207 inner

Andrew Dismore AM opposed routes 134 and N5

93

Justine Greening MP opposed route 14

Other proposed changes Where mentioned by local authorities and elected representatives these routes are supported. Overall comments The response by London Councils is made on behalf of a number of Local Authorities. London Councils and Kensington & Chelsea suggested consideration be given to less substantial frequency reductions initially when Night Tube begins and to keep levels of service under review. Finally there were suggestions for new routes, and a number of requests for clarification and further information which will be responded to individually.

94

London Councils London Councils welcomes the social and economic benefits that the introduction of the Night Tube will bring. They recognise that in some cases this will reduce demand on existing high frequency Night Bus services. In summary they want to see TfL:

Work with boroughs (and the Police, if necessary) to address any negative impacts of

people congregating at, or near, Tube stations, given that the new Friday/Saturday

services will run at frequencies of every 30 minutes. TfL should monitor if it is

necessary to increase the frequency of services on the proposed routes.

Work with boroughs to address local concerns about reduced frequencies of Night

Buses in their areas, to consider less substantial reductions initially when the Night

Tube begins and to keep levels of service under review once changes are made.

Make information available to boroughs, residents and businesses on the difference

in journey times between those completed using a combination of the Night Tube and

Night Buses compared to those completed using existing Night Buses on the most

affected routes. This is in regard to the analysis by TfL that “indicates that

customers who take the tube rather than the bus for all or part of their journey will

save 20 minutes on average, and in some cases up to an hour”.

Confirm that buses operating less frequently than one bus every 10 minutes will run

to a published timetable with an even interval between buses.

Consider how many people may be put off or prevented from using the Night Tube

by the additional cost and whether its fare structure could accommodate a reduced

Night Tube fare for frequent night time travellers. They asked that TfL should be flexible

enough to consider reintroducing Night Bus services after changes are made if

demand remains high.

Undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment of the proposals and publicising the

results. London Councils are concerned that many tube stations do not provide step

free access from street to train and that for people that rely on the bus service the

Night Tube is not a reasonable alternative.

Work more collaboratively with boroughs on the issue of taxi ranks required as a

result of the introduction of the Night Tube and keeping the level of provision required

under review.

London Borough of Croydon

Croydon Council welcomes any increase in the availability of public transport for Londoners, however considers that the Night Tube and associated Night Bus changes have little or no effect on Croydon. The Council considers that the change in lifestyles and desire for increasing access throughout the night are just as strong in the borough as other parts of London.

95

The Council highlights gaps in the borough’s current night bus provision; for example key district centres such as Addiscombe and South Norwood are not served. They consider there is a lack of night links to Lewisham, Catford, Sutton, Wimbledon, Kingston and Heathrow. They also note that the hours of operation of the London Overground service are shorter than other forms of public transport services. The Council suggests that a thorough and strategic review of Croydon’s (or South London’s) night bus network be carried out. London Borough of Ealing Cllr Bassam Mahfouz, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Leisure and officers The Council supports the proposals in general and in particular

Routes 114, E1 and H32 (new Friday/ Saturday night services)

Route N207(outer section) where the frequency is proposed to increase

The Council does not support

Route 94 (where some passengers will transfer to the night tube and proposed

frequency reduces)

The Council suggests that the E1 timetable should compliment the N7 timetable, which also runs every half hour and so they should be aimed to leave Ealing Broadway in between the times the N7 is expected to leave there. This would mean a bus around every 15 mins, rather than two buses every 30 mins. The Council also suggested that the choice of bus stop at Haven Green for these two services should be considered carefully. It may be most appropriate to have the Northolt/Greenford bound E1 and N7 picking up people from the same bus stop, whilst the eastbound N7 can pick up from the bus stop on the east side of Haven Green. The Council suggests TfL consider the frequency of the N207 (inner section) from Holborn to Hayes Bypass to be every 8-10 minutes (compared to the proposed every 10 minutes). The Council also suggests a night service for the 95 bus route, which runs parallel to the West Ruislip branch of the Central Line, starting from North Acton and to beyond Greenford to Northolt and Ruislip (where it could link up with the 114 service). The Council considers a night 95 service would be well used and an easier, cheaper alternative to extending both branches of the west end of the Central line. The Council has concerns that bus stand disturbance issues are likely to be exacerbated at night so it is imperative that drivers switch off their engines whilst on stand and keep noise to a minimum. The Council would like more adoption of low emission vehicles on TfL bus routes such as hybrid vehicles especially in Ealing. This will help reduce noise and help to address the air quality issues in the borough. London Borough of Ealing – Cllr Ray Ward Cllr Ray Ward supports

96

Route E1 (new Friday/Saturday night service)

He stated that there had been some problems with bus drivers speeding down Drayton Bridge Rd, causing vibrations within the houses in the immediate vicinity and sought reassurance this was being addressed. London Borough of Enfield Cllr Daniel Anderson Cabinet Member for Environment stated that the Council supports the proposals for

Routes 34 and 307 (new Friday/Saturday night service)

He stated that the Council feels there is a strong case for making these a 30 minute service through the night across the week. This is because of the employment and retail centres along the route as well as North Middlesex Hospital (route 34) and Barnet Hospital (route 307). The Council does not support

Route N91 where there is a reduction in frequency with some passengers transferring to

Night Tube

The Council highlights that the night bus network will still play an important role in connecting local centres and communities. While acknowledging that while overall demand along some corridors might reduce, there is the potential for the Night Tube to actually generate additional trips on the local night bus network, as more residents take advantage of the new services. The Council suggests a trial and see approach to the Night Tube whereby existing night bus services are maintained and usage monitored before any service reductions are considered. London Borough of Hackney The Council supports

Route 47 (new 24 hour service) which will support the evening economy of Shoreditch

The Council does not support the following changes to frequencies for services where some passengers will transfer to Night Tube

Route N8 (inner section)

Route N29 (inner and outer sections)

Route N38 (inner and outer sections)

Route N73

The Council object to the frequency reductions on these four routes directly serving Hackney as no Tube service runs through the Borough. The Council has no specific opinion

97

on routes not directly affecting Hackney, but in principle they would not support reductions of the total bus service 'offer' available to residents of and visitors to Hackney. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham The Council does not support

Routes where there is a reduction in frequency with some passengers transferring to

Night Tube: routes N9 (inner), 14 , 94, N97 and N207 (inner)

The Council’s concerns include

The roads along which the N9 travels will not be served by Night Tube, so there will be no decrease in demand

The proposed 30 minute service on Route 94 is not frequent enough. Although the Council accepts that some people who currently use this bus may choose to use the tube instead, they consider many bus users do not generally use the Underground, either for reasons of affordability or accessibility. The Council is concerned that 30 minutes is too long for people to wait for a bus, especially in bad weather. They consider the route is not served by a parallel tube line west of Shepherds Bush

Reducing the frequency of the Route N97 to three times an hour represents too dramatic a change in service

The reduction in the frequency of Route N207 is not justified as there is no tube west of Ealing Broadway and the bus and Central line take very different routes between Shepherd’s Bush and Ealing Broadway

London Borough of Hillingdon Responses were received from an officer and Cllr Judy Kelly (ward councillor for South Ruislip). The Council supports

Route 114 (new Friday/Saturday service)

Route 222 (new night service, seven days a week)

Routes N9 and N207 (increased frequency on outer sections)

Hillingdon Council are interested in a potential new night bus service 350 Stockley Park to West Drayton and Heathrow. They suggested this is considered a priority as it would cater for night workers commuting between Hayes town centre and Heathrow Airport via Stockley Park Business Park. London Borough of Havering The Council supports

Route 296 (new Friday/Saturday night service)

98

Route N86 (increased frequency of services on Friday and Saturday nights)

London Borough of Harrow Councillor Barry Kendler, Ward member for Edgware stated that they consulted every resident in the ward along the route of the night bus. Only one resident replied who supported the proposals although had concerns about noise of the buses. London Borough of Islington – Cllr Claudia Webbe Councillor Webbe (Executive Member for Environment and Transport) stated that although Islington Council welcomes the Night Tube, they have concerns about the impact on Islington’s night time centres, and more importantly on low paid shift workers. The Council does not support

Route N91 (service with a reduction in frequency as some passengers will transfer to

night tubes)

The Council’s concerns include:

The impact that the reduction in night bus services would have on Islington shift workers

on lower incomes including cleaning, catering and medical staff. These workers may be

unable to afford the higher night tube fares

The N91 runs through areas not well served by other night services and through areas

with the highest levels of deprivation in the borough (along Caledonian Road and

Hornsey Road), which are areas in which the local residents would struggle to pay the

higher tube fares.

There is a reduction in frequency of some night bus services through Angel. Although

alternative night bus services are available in the area, the Council is concerned that this

will leave people waiting for a bus at the stops for longer with increased risk of anti-

social behaviour

The Council is disappointed that TfL is not introducing the Night Tube along the Bank branch of the Northern Line, as this would serve Islington’s main night time centres at Old Street (and Shoreditch) and Angel. London Borough of Lambeth Councillor Christopher Wellbelove (councillor for Clapham Town Ward) does not support

Routes 88 and N155 (which have a reduction in frequency as where some passengers

will transfer to the night tube service).

He considers these two services are currently extremely oversubscribed especially the N155 which often is impossible to get onto. The Councillor feels the reduction also does not take into consideration the number of people on low-incomes working anti-social hours who cannot afford tube fares and will suffer a poorer service.

99

London Borough of Newham Councillor David Christie (councillor for Beckton ward) supports:



Bus routes with changes to frequencies at weekends where some passengers will

transfer to Night Tube

Route N86

Councillor Christie also suggests:

Increasing frequencies of the 238 at weekends

Increasing frequencies of night and day services on 104 and 238, and better

timetabling and management of these services during the day to provide the best

service for the shared part of the route

Further services to provide additional accessibility from tube stations e.g. Stratford,

West Ham and Canning Town within Newham and making route 262 from Stratford a

night bus as there is a lack of north south services within Newham.

Increase frequency of the N551 service from Canning Town Outer to create a better

service linking in with the night Jubilee line

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea The Council welcomes the introduction of all night Underground services, and feels it is right that TfL should review demand for night bus services so as to ensure that it does not waste money running empty buses in the middle of the night. The Council does not support the following routes where there is a reduction in the frequency of services with some passengers transferring to Night Tube


Route 94

Route N97


The Council has concerns

that reductions in service frequency on the bus network will have the greatest impact on

those who are unable to take advantage of the improved Underground service (e.g.

people on low incomes, people with reduced mobility)

100

that 30 minutes is too long for people to wait for a bus, especially in bad weather

The Council suggests

that no central London night bus services should have frequencies below four buses per

hour

frequencies could be reduced less dramatically to begin with, and should be kept under

review once the night-time Underground services have begun.

Where buses are removed, it is done in such a way so as to ensure an even interval

between the remaining buses. The Council also expects that buses will continue to run

to a published timetable in all cases where buses are less frequent than one every ten

minutes.

London Borough of Redbridge Responses were received from an officer and Cllr John Howard (Aldborough Ward). The Council supports

Routes 123 and 296 (new Friday/ Saturday night services)

They noted that the bus route N8 will face a slight reduction at the outer section. The Council feels that with the increase in other routes, and the night tube, this is understandable. London Borough of Sutton The Council supports

Route 154 route (new Friday/Saturday night service) and would like to see this extended

to the rest of the week

The Council would like consideration to be given to diverting the night time services on route 154 via Throwley Way and Carshalton Road in Sutton town centre rather than Benhill Avenue, Lower Road, Westmead Road and Ringstead Road. This would better serve the night time economy in Sutton which is concentrated at the top of the High Street, and mean night buses would not have to run on these residential roads. The Council asked that the timings of the buses will, as far as possible, connect with the night tubes if the frequency is lower than the standard daytime frequency. London Borough of Waltham Forest – Cllr Tim Bennett-Goodman Councillor Tim Bennett-Goodman (councillor for Higham Hill Ward) supports

Route 158 (new Friday/Saturday evening service)

While supportive he would welcome a service during the week to help night/shift workers get to work.

101

He also stated that it should not be assumed that passengers will automatically transfer to tubes and that poorer people generally reply on buses more. City of Westminster The City Council supports

all bus routes with new Friday and Saturday night services

all bus routes with new proposed night services seven days a week

all bus routes with extra buses at weekend where some passengers will transfer to

night tube where the proposed frequency is greater than every 15 minutes

The City Council does not support

any Night Bus route from the West End Partnership area in particular, and across

Westminster in general, that has a frequency below four buses per hour

The City Council has concerns that people will not be boarding or alighting a bus near to an underground station and is concerned that they may have to wait for 30 minutes which is considered to be a long period. The City Council feels that extensions from say 7-10 minutes to 15 minutes are understandable as it is accepted that some people will transfer to the underground and therefore a minor adjustment to bus frequencies is supported in this context. The City Council suggests that the changes are subject to a review of patronage and frequency 12 months after the changes are implemented.

The City Council supports

the other proposed route changes (47, N47, N199, 188, N1, N86, N133 and N381).

For these routes the City Council considers that whilst some are more than 15 minute frequencies on Friday-Saturday, and rest of the week nights, they do not represent a reduction in frequency to the present day network, and acknowledge that the N86 will increase in frequency on Friday and Saturday nights. The City Council requests that all new contracts with operators stipulate that engine idling at Terminal Stands does not occur and that good on-street supervision is provided. The City Council also requests that consideration be given by TfL with the City Council to creating 'Shared Use' bays on a consolidated number of Terminal Stands across the West End. The released kerbside bays could be used by alternative needs such as West End Taxi ranking, freight deliveries to businesses and Theatre Coach set down and pick up bays as part of the wider West End Partnership proposals.

102

London Assembly members Andrew Dismore – Assembly Member (Barnet and Camden) Andrew Dismore welcomes the new Night Tube. However he does not support the proposals for

Routes 134, N5 and N20 where there are frequency reductions as some passengers will

transfer to the night tube.

The Assembly Member states these are bus routes used by the workers of the night-time economy as well as its consumers. Employees who work unsociable hours; often on minimum wage and who depend on a regular service to get them to and from work or home. He considers that by reducing the frequency of these services TfL is forcing low paid workers to use the more expensive Underground which does not offer the same service or connections as buses. He feels that by this will result in low paid workers having to walk longer distances at night. Joanne McCartney – Assembly Member (Enfield and Haringey) Joanne McCartney supports

Routes 123, 307, W3 and W7 (new Friday/Saturday night services)

However she does not support

Route N91 (reduction in frequency due to passengers transferring to Night Tube)

Her concerns are:

The difference in price between tube fares and bus fares and that people on low

incomes may not be able to afford to travel by tube

Many people will still rely on night buses to get them that much closer to their front door,

particularly in Outer London where there are fewer tube stations and the distance

between stations is typically greater

Longer waiting times for buses and particular concern for vulnerable passengers

Not all tube stations have step free access and therefore TfL will need to ensure that

any reductions to the night bus network do not disproportionately impact on passengers

with disabilities. Adequate numbers of staff need to be available to aid passengers that

require assistance, be it with the ticket machines or accessing the tube.

The safety of staff and passengers is of upmost importance, particularly given that the

night tube is running on Friday and Saturday nights when people are most likely to be

under the influence of alcohol, and assaults on London Underground staff have

increased

Staffing levels at Underground stations

That the reduction to some of the night bus services may leave Londoners feeling less

safe, particularly in the outer boroughs such as Enfield and Haringey. Passengers must

103

not be forced to wait long times at secluded bus stops or walk long distances home from

the tube station at night as a result of these changes.

The Assembly Member suggests to help mitigate these concerns, TfL could provide real time night bus information at all night tube stations so passengers have the choice of waiting there instead of the bus stop itself. Richard Tracey - Assembly Member (Merton and Wandsworth) Richard Tracey is mainly concerned about route N319. He stated that the residents of Broomwood Road SW11 are most concerned about excess noise during the night. Several years ago they campaigned to have road humps removed and noisy buses replaced with quiet ones. He stated that they are now worried that their good works and success will be frustrated.

104

Members of Parliament Tom Brake MP Carshalton & Wallington Tom Brake MP supports

Route 154, 319 (new Friday/Saturday night services)

Route N155 (reduced frequency at weekends where some passengers will transfer to

night tube)

Route N133 (extended to Mitcham via Morden)

He suggested that it would be good for the 154 route to include a stop by Carshalton College for students that live in the surrounding area. He considers that the night tube proposals mean it would be quicker on the tube to towns covered on the N155. Reducing the frequency of the (N155) service would decrease traffic on the road and emissions. Overall Tom Brake considers services into Surrey should be made more accessible. Jane Ellison MP Battersea, Balham and Wandsworth Jane Ellison is very supportive of the Night Tube and the benefits this will bring both to her constituents and London as a whole. She raised the concerns of residents of Broomwood Road, SW11 about the proposed changes to the route 319 service to a Friday and Saturday night service. Residents have suggested:

The 319 route should utilise the most modern, hybrid buses, that are significantly quieter

and less polluting than the older models

Broomwood Road would need more regular maintenance and repair, to ensure the

integrity of the road surface, given greater usage

Buses on this route would need regular maintenance to reduce noise (for example, from

brakes, malfunctioning engines or cooling mechanisms).

Justine Greening MP Putney, Roehampton & Southfields Justine Greening welcomes the improvements to the Night Bus service. She states that the Wimbledon branch of the District Line is the only tube line in her constituency. Residents will be for the most part dependent on the night bus service alone. She does not support

Route 14 (reduced frequency at weekends where some passengers will transfer to night tube)

She acknowledged while this is still relatively frequent compared to some night bus services she is concerned that this will penalise local residents with no additional Night Tube option.

105

Teresa Pearce MP Erith and Thamesmead Teresa Pearce MP welcomes the increase in travel options on Friday and Saturday nights. She notes that while her Thamesmead constituency is not served directly by the tube, people do use the Jubilee Line to North Greenwich and connect into the bus network for journeys to and from her area. A number of people commute outside normal working hours, often to low paid jobs in areas like docklands. She has concerns

How well the night bus services from North Greenwich will be able to support the new

passenger activity from the Jubilee line service

Of the safety of people potentially waiting for long periods for buses, in a place where

there may not be much security cover such as North Greenwich

106

London TravelWatch London TravelWatch generally supported the proposals. They requested information on how passengers will know the difference between buses that run on weekend nights only and those that run every night. They asked how this will be indicated on the destination blind, bus stop flag, maps etc. They also requested to know what monitoring of demand for night bus services will be undertaken. Transport User Groups and Committees Clapham Transport Users Group The Group does not support

Routes 88 and N155 (reduced frequency at weekends where some passengers will transfer to night tube)

The Group highlighted problems of night time disorder in Clapham and the importance of transport in shifting large crowds. The Group has a number of concerns in relation to the reduced frequencies of these two bus services:

people with reduced mobility or disabled people, who cannot use the Tube in Clapham, will be impacted by a reduction in the frequency of the bus services on Friday and Saturday nights

that some people will not use the Tube as there could be large numbers of drunken people on the narrow platforms at Clapham North and Clapham Common Tubes.

if a half hourly bus service was cancelled then people would have to wait a long time for a bus and be at risk from illegal taxi touts

the 88 and N155 pass through areas not directly near a Tube for example South Lambeth Road

The Group has suggestions for expanding the Night Bus routes in the area for example a Stockwell-Hounslow service via Clapham and Putney and extending the N155 from Morden to Sutton. East Surrey Transport Committee The Committee considers Croydon is well served by night bus services however, there are still some gaps in the night network to neighbouring boroughs and to two large local district centres within Croydon with large residential populations (Addiscombe and South Norwood). They suggest:

Route 154 should run all night every night and be extended from Morden to Wimbledon. This would also have the advantage of providing a direct night bus service between Wimbledon and Sutton.

Route 75 should run all night to provide a service to Catford and Lewisham (this would serve South Norwood)

107

For Addiscombe that either the 54 be extended from Elmers End to Croydon as the N54 or the existing night services on route 119 be diverted via Cherry Orchard Road, Lower Addiscombe Road and Shirley Road and be renumbered N119

Alternatively extend the 176 from Penge to Croydon as route N176 via South Norwood and Addiscombe following route 75 to the Goat House Bridge and then via Manor Road and the 312 route terminating at Central Croydon.

Harrow Public Transport Users Group Association The Association supports

Routes 114 and 183 (new Friday/Saturday night services) The Association suggests that TfL consider making these routes a 24/7 service throughout the week. They are disappointed that neither the H12 nor 340 are to be 24 hour services on Friday and Saturday nights and suggest that these could be considered at a later date. Potters Bar and St Albans Transport User Group The Group supports

Routes 34,114, 123, 183, 307, E1, W3, W7 (new Friday/Saturday night services)


Routes 14, 88, 94, 134, N5, N29 (inner and outer), N91, N207 (inner and outer) (routes with frequency changes at weekends where some passengers will transfer to Night Tube)

The Group does not support


Route N20 (route with frequency reduction at weekends where some passengers will

transfer to Night Tube)

The Group considers that the 238 duplicates the Great Eastern rail route. The Group suggested

that there should be four routes linking up North, South, East and West outer London for journeys avoiding zones 1 and 2

Night Bus services may be required for Tottenham Hotspur FC if plans proceed for a Lonon based NFL franchise which would play late evenings at weekends to suit peak TV times in the US and Asia

TFL review Airport service provision, given that people travelling to/from major events may need to get to Heathrow/ Gatwick/ Luton/ Stansted or Southend

Consider a 24/7 service where possible on the GLA sections of Crossrail and Thameslink

108

They had concerns that capacity at Trafalgar Square may become cramped with many people and night buses which could cause pollution.

109

Businesses Barfly Camden Barfly Camden supports

Routes W3 and W7 (new Friday/Saturday night services)

The organisation does not support

Routes 134 and N20 (reduced frequency at weekends where some passengers will transfer to night tube)

The organisation noted that licensing enforcement puts responsibility on venues to encourage swift dispersal of customers during the early hours and therefore they support proposals by TfL to provide more transport options at night. They also raised specific safety concerns for women at night.

Heathrow Airport Heathrow Airport supports

Route N9 bus service to Heathrow (increased frequency of service)

The Airport is concerned that the 24 Night Tube that is coming into operation will not run to Terminal 4. They stated there is no mechanism for passengers or airport colleagues to move from Terminal 5 or Central Heathrow to get to Terminal 4. They suggest to convert either the 490 or 482 to run 24 hours which could connect T5 and T4 throughout the night. This would provide an additional south side link to Heathrow for airport workers that need to arrive for their early shift before 04:00 hours.

110

Community and resident groups

ASPRA – Addiscombe and Shirley Park Residents’ Association A representative from the Association stated their support for the proposals. They suggested it would be good if the X26 to and from Heathrow could continue at night. Beddington North Neighbourhood Forum A representative from the Forum stated that they support

Route 154 (new Friday/Saturday night service) They stated that they would like to see the service operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Carshalton Beeches Residents Association A representative from the Association stated that they support


Route N155 (frequency change at weekends where some passengers will transfer to night tube)

Route N133 (other proposed change)

They stated that they would like to see the Night Bus from central London to Sutton/Croydon reinstated. They considered that the consultation should have had a higher profile, as it was only bought to their attention by their MP.

Charecroft Tenants and Residents Association A representative from the Association stated that they do not support

Route 94 (reduced frequency at weekends where some passengers will transfer to night tube)

They stated they would like to see the frequency maintained or improved, not decreased. Flightpath Residents Association A representative from the Association stated that they supported all the proposals. They consider route 154 is essential to night time workers in clubs and pubs in Croydon and Sutton. They suggest further night bus services should be provided to reduce the risk of people using unlicensed taxis.

111

London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies A representative from the Forum stated they support all of the proposals with the exception of Route N207 (inner). They considered this route would need a higher rather than lesser frequency. They consider there are some sections of routes generally well served by Night Tube that are not well served by Night Bus; Lea Bridge Road (N38) and Stoke Newington (N73). They suggest there is an appraisal of the impact of the changes after six months where frequency on the routes has been reduced and after twelve months for other routes. London LGBT and Community Pride CIC (Community Interest Company) A representative from the Group stated that they support

All the routes with proposed new Friday/Saturday night services

All the routes with proposed new night services, seven nights a week

Routes N9 (outer) and N207(outer) with proposed frequency increases at weekends and route N29 (outer) which has no change in frequency

Other proposed changes for routes 47, N47, 188, N86, N133 and N381 They do not support

Routes 88, 94, N5, N8 (inner), N20, N91, N97, N98 (inner and outer), N155 and N207 (inner) – routes with reduced frequency at weekends where some passengers will transfer to night tube

The representative stated concerns for people with mobility problems as buses can be more accessible than tube stations in central London.

South East London Housing Co-op Forum A representative from the Forum stated that they support

Routes 47, N47, N199, 188, N1 and N381(other proposed changes) Upper Drive Neighbourhood Watch The Chair of the Upper Drive Neighbourhood Watch does not support


The Chair stated that the Neighbourhood Watch is concerned about the noise and

vibrations from existing bus services (366 and 145), and considers the area is already well

112

served by the Underground and Night Bus services. The Chair stated concerns that the new

service will damage quality of life and have a detrimental effect on property prices.

An email was also received from a household which is part of the Upper Drive

Neighbourhood Watch in support of the proposed new service. They considered that the

members of the Neighbourhood Watch had not been consulted. They consider that this

service would provide a good link for residents on The Drive and adjacent roads. They

considered the proposed night bus service will provide the last link home particularly for

those who are less able bodied and not able to walk the distance from the station.

Yiewsley & West Drayton Town Centre Action Group The Action Group supports

Route 222 (new night service, seven night a week)

113

Appendix A – Copy of consultation material

114

115

116

North London East London South London South East London West London

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

About you

125

Appendix B – Addresses where a letter drop was carried out

Night bus for night tube

Consultation letters to frontagers on suburban roads which will have a night bus for the first time

Bus route Road names for distribution Borough

34 Oakleigh Road North Barnet

34 Oakleigh Road South Barnet

114 Pembroke Road Hillingdon

114 Victoria Road Hillingdon

114 Eastcote Lane Harrow

114 Streatfield Road Harrow

114 Turner Road Harrow

114 Mollison Way Harrow

114 Watling Avenue Barnet

145 The Drive Redbridge

145 South Park Drive Redbridge

145 Hedgemans Road Barking and Dagenham

145 Church Elm Lane Barking and Dagenham

154 Benhill Avenue Sutton

154 Lower Road Sutton

154 Westmead Road Sutton

154 Ringstead Road Sutton

154 Park Hill Sutton

154 Beeches Avenue Sutton

158 Billet Road Waltham Forest

158 Blackhorse Lane Waltham Forest

158 Blackhorse Road Waltham Forest

158 St. James Street Waltham Forest

158 Markhouse Road Waltham Forest

158 Church Road Waltham Forest

238 Portway Road Newham

238 Plashet Road Newham

238 Plashet Grove Newham

296 Billet Road Redbridge

296 Billet Road Barking and Dagenham

296 Rose Lane Barking and Dagenham

126

307 Cat Hill Barnet

307 Slades Hill Enfield

307 Green Street Enfield

319 Broomwood Road Wandsworth

319 Northcote Road Wandsworth

H32 North Hyde Lane Hounslow

H32 Vicarage Farm Road Hounslow

486 Charlton Church Lane Greenwich

486 Baker Road Greenwich

E1 Gordon Road Ealing

E1 Sutherland Avenue Ealing

E1 Drayton Bridge Road Ealing

H37 St. John's Road Hounslow

H37 South St. Hounslow

H37 Richmond Road Hounslow

H37 St. Margarets Road Richmond Upon Thames

N199 Greenwich South Street Greenwich

W3 Ferme Park Road Haringey

W3 Elmsfield Avenue Haringey

W3 Rokesly Avenue Haringey

W3 Middle Lane Haringey

W3 Priory Road Haringey

W3 Perth Road Haringey

127

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

128

London TravelWatch

Elected London Assembly Members and Members of Parliament

Mike Tuffrey AM

Andrew Boff AM

Caroline Pidgeon AM

Darren Johnson AM

Fiona Twycross AM

Gareth Bacon AM

Jenny Jones AM

Joanne McCartney AM

Murad Qureshi AM

Nicky Gavron AM

Richard Tracey AM

Stephen Knight AM

Tom Copley AM

Victoria Borwick AM

Zac Goldsmith MP

Claire Perry MP

Patrick McLoughlin MP

Seema Malhotra MP

Stephen Hammond MP

Susan Kramer MP

129

Ward councillors who received an email informing them of a letter drop to residents (list of addresses in Appendix B)

Elected members - ward councillors Ward Borough

Cllr Jeff Wade Chadwell Heath Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Sade Bright Chadwell Heath Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Sam Tarry Chadwell Heath Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Irma Freeborn Goresbrook Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Moin Quadri Goresbrook Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Simon Bremner Goresbrook Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Amardeep Singh Jamu River Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Eileen Keller River Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Peter Chand River Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Lee Waker Village Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Margaret Mullane Village Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Phil Waker Village Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Andreas Ioannidis Brunswick Park Barnet

Cllr Kathy Levine Brunswick Park Barnet

Cllr Lisa Rutter Brunswick Park Barnet

Cllr Ammar Naqvi Burnt Oak Barnet

Cllr Charlie O-Macauley Burnt Oak Barnet

Cllr Claire Farrier Burnt Oak Barnet

Cllr Laurie Williams East Barnet Barnet

Cllr Philip Cohen East Barnet Barnet

Cllr Rebecca Challice East Barnet Barnet

Cllr Brian Salinger Oakleigh Barnet

Cllr Sachin Rajput Oakleigh Barnet

Cllr Stephen Sowerby Oakleigh Barnet

Cllr David Rodgers Cleveland Ealing

Cllr Ian Proud Cleveland Ealing

Cllr Lynne Murray Cleveland Ealing

Cllr Alexander Stafford Ealing Broadway Ealing

Cllr Anthony Young Ealing Broadway Ealing

Cllr Mrs Seema Kumar Ealing Broadway Ealing

Cllr Ciaran McCartan Hobbayne Ealing

Cllr Penny Jones Hobbayne Ealing

Cllr Ray Wall Hobbayne Ealing

Cllr Ahmet Hasan Enfield Highway Enfield

Cllr Christine Hamilton Enfield Highway Enfield

Cllr Turgut Esendagli Enfield Highway Enfield

Cllr Dogan Delman Highlands Enfield

Cllr Glynis Vince Highlands Enfield

130

Cllr Lee David-Sanders Highlands Enfield

Cllr Allan MacCarthy Charlton Greenwich

Cllr Gary Parker Charlton Greenwich

Cllr Miranda Williams Charlton Greenwich

Cllr Aidan Smith Greenwich West Greenwich

Cllr Matthew Pennycook Greenwich West Greenwich

Cllr Maureen O'Mara Greenwich West Greenwich

Cllr Christine Grice Kidbrooke with Hornfair Greenwich

Cllr David Stanley Kidbrooke with Hornfair Greenwich

Cllr Norman Adams Kidbrooke with Hornfair Greenwich

Cllr Chris Lloyd Peninsula Greenwich

Cllr Denise Scott-McDonald Peninsula Greenwich

Cllr Stephen Brain Peninsula Greenwich

Cllr Ambreen Hisbani Woolwich Common Greenwich

Cllr David Gardner Woolwich Common Greenwich

Cllr Harpinder Singh Woolwich Common Greenwich

Cllr Jason Arthur Crouch End Haringey

Cllr Nathan Doron Crouch End Haringey

Cllr Sarah Elliot Crouch End Haringey

Cllr Adam Jogee Hornsey Haringey

Cllr Elin Weston Hornsey Haringey

Cllr Jennifer Mann Hornsey Haringey

Cllr Gail Engert Muswell Hill Haringey

Cllr Mark Blake Muswell Hill Haringey

Cllr Pippa Connor Muswell Hill Haringey

Cllr Kirsten Hearn Stroud Green Haringey

Cllr Raj Sahota Stroud Green Haringey

Cllr Tim Gallagher Stroud Green Haringey

Cllr Ann Waters Woodside Haringey

Cllr Charles Wright Woodside Haringey

Cllr George Meehan Woodside Haringey

Cllr Barry Kendler Edgware Harrow

Cllr Mrs Chika Amadi Edgware Harrow

Cllr Nitin Parekh Edgware Harrow

Cllr Kiran Ramchandani Queensbury Harrow

Cllr Michael Borio Queensbury Harrow

Cllr Sachin Shah Queensbury Harrow

Cllr Bob Currie Roxbourne Harrow

Cllr Graham Henson Roxbourne Harrow

Cllr Josephine Dooley Roxbourne Harrow

Cllr Douglas Mills Manor Hillingdon

Cllr Michael Markham Manor Hillingdon

Cllr Susan O'Brien Manor Hillingdon

Cllr Allan Kauffman South Ruislip Hillingdon

Cllr Jem Duducu South Ruislip Hillingdon

131

Cllr Judy Kelly South Ruislip Hillingdon

Cllr Brian Crowe West Ruislip Hillingdon

Cllr John Riley West Ruislip Hillingdon

Cllr Philip Corthorne West Ruislip Hillingdon

Cllr Harleen Atwal Hear Heston Central Hounslow

Cllr Manjit Singh Buttar Heston Central Hounslow

Cllr Surinder Purewal Heston Central Hounslow

Cllr Amritpal Mann Heston East Hounslow

Cllr Gurmail Lal Heston East Hounslow

Cllr Kamaljit Kaur Heston East Hounslow

Cllr Lily Bath Heston West Hounslow

Cllr Rajinder Bath Heston West Hounslow

Cllr Shantanu Rajawat Heston West Hounslow

Cllr Bob Whatley Hounslow South Hounslow

Cllr Shaida Mehrban Hounslow South Hounslow

Cllr Tom Bruce Hounslow South Hounslow

Cllr Ed Mayne Isleworth Hounslow

Cllr Linda Green Isleworth Hounslow

Cllr Sue Sampson Isleworth Hounslow

Cllr Peter De Vic Carey Osterley and Spring Grove Hounslow

Cllr Sheila O'Reilly Osterley and Spring Grove Hounslow

Cllr Tony Louki Osterley and Spring Grove Hounslow

Cllr Katherine Dunne Syon Hounslow

Cllr Steve Curran Syon Hounslow

Cllr Theo Dennison Syon Hounslow

Cllr Firoza Ahmed Nekiwala East Ham North Newham

Cllr Paul Duraisamy Sathianesan East Ham North Newham

Cllr Zuber Gulamussen East Ham North Newham

Cllr Jose Alexander Green Street East Newham

Cllr Mukesh Patel Green Street East Newham

Cllr Rohima Rahman Green Street East Newham

Cllr Hanif Abdulmuhit Green Street West Newham

Cllr Idris Ibrahim Green Street West Newham

Cllr Tahmina Rahman Green Street West Newham

Cllr Forhad Hussain Plaistow North Newham

Cllr James Beckles Plaistow North Newham

Cllr Joy Laguda Plaistow North Newham

Cllr Freda Bourne West Ham Newham

Cllr John Gray West Ham Newham

Cllr John Whitworth West Ham Newham

132

Cllr Debbie Kaur-Thiara Aldborough Redbridge

Cllr John Peter Howard Aldborough Redbridge

Councillor Wes Streeting Aldborough Redbridge

Cllr Mahboob Chaudhary Cranbrook Redbridge

Cllr Mushtaq Ahmed Cranbrook Redbridge

Cllr Varinder Singh Bola Cranbrook Redbridge

Cllr Ayodhiya Parkash Mayfield Redbridge

Cllr Jas Athwal Mayfield Redbridge

Cllr Kay Flint Mayfield Redbridge

Cllr Farah Khanum Hussain Valentines Redbridge

Cllr Khayer Chowdhury Valentines Redbridge

Cllr Ross James Hatfull Valentines Redbridge

Cllr Alexander Ehmann St. Margarets and North Twickenham Richmond Upon Thames

Cllr Ben Khosa St. Margarets and North Twickenham Richmond Upon Thames

Cllr Geoff Acton St. Margarets and North Twickenham Richmond Upon Thames

Cllr Alan Salter Carshalton Central Sutton

Cllr Hamish Pollock Carshalton Central Sutton

Cllr Jill Whitehead Carshalton Central Sutton

Cllr Amy Haldane Carshalton South and Clockhouse Sutton

Cllr Moira Butt Carshalton South and Clockhouse Sutton

Cllr Tim Crowley Carshalton South and Clockhouse Sutton

Cllr Ali Mirhashem Sutton Central Sutton

Cllr David Bartolucci Sutton Central Sutton

Cllr Vincent Galligan Sutton Central Sutton

Cllr Louise Mitchell Chapel End Waltham Forest

Cllr Paul Douglas Chapel End Waltham Forest

Cllr Steve Terry Chapel End Waltham Forest

Cllr Clare Coghill High Street Waltham Forest

Cllr Liaquat Ali High Street Waltham Forest

Cllr Raja Anwar High Street Waltham Forest

Cllr Alistair Strathern Higham Hill Waltham Forest

Cllr Karen Bellamy Higham Hill Waltham Forest

Cllr Tim Bennett-Goodman Higham Hill Waltham Forest

Cllr Masood Ahmad Lea Bridge Waltham Forest

Cllr Mohammad Asghar Lea Bridge Waltham Forest

Cllr Yemi Osho Lea Bridge Waltham Forest

Cllr Jacob Edwards Leyton Waltham Forest

Cllr Simon Miller Leyton Waltham Forest

133

Cllr Whitney Ihenachor Leyton Waltham Forest

Cllr Asim Mahmood Markhouse Waltham Forest

Cllr Johar Khan Markhouse Waltham Forest

Cllr Sharon Waldron Markhouse Waltham Forest

Cllr Grace Williams William Morris Waltham Forest

Cllr Nadeem Ali William Morris Waltham Forest

Cllr Stuart Emmerson William Morris Waltham Forest

Cllr Jane Dodd Northcote Wandsworth

Cllr Martin D. Johnson Northcote Wandsworth

Cllr Peter Dawson Northcote Wandsworth

134

Local Authorities

London Boroughs

Police, Fire & Health Authorities

CCG NHS Central London

London Ambulance Service

London Fire and Emergency Authority

London Fire Brigades

Metropolitan Police

Transport Groups and Unions

AA Motoring Trust London TravelWatch

Association of British Drivers Motorcycle Industry Association

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

RMT Union

Freight Transport Association Road Haulage Association

Green Flag Group Unions Together

Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Unite

London Omnibus Traction Society

Other Stakeholders

Action on Hearing Loss (Formerly RNID) London City Airport

Age Concern London London Cycling Campaign

Age UK London Older People's Strategy Group

Alzheimer's Society London Underground

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance MIND

Association of Car Fleet Operators Motorcycle Action Group

British Motorcyclists Federation National Children's Bureau

BT National Grid

Campaign for Better Transport Northbank BID

Canal & River Trust London Port of London Authority

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Royal Mail

CTC, the national cycling charity Royal Parks

Disability Alliance Sense

Disability Rights UK Sixty Plus

EDF Energy Stroke Association

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Sustrans

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Thames Water

Joint Mobility Unit The British Dyslexia Association

Living Streets Victoria Business Improvement District

135

Appendix D – Proposed Night Bus routes and Night Tube network maps

136

137

138

139

140

Night bus for night tube Consultation Report...3 1 Introduction Night Bus services in London have increased beyond recognition in the last 30 years. This reflects and supports changes

Documents