Hi Lisa, Any comments or changes on this before I send it ...

From: Thomas Dennis (ST)

Sent: 01 July 2013 09:52 To: Corbett Lisa

Subject: 302 consultation

Hi Lisa, Any comments or changes on this before I send it to Marketing? Thanks, Dennis Dennis Thomas | Consultation Team

Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London

Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ

Phone:

Email: d

From: Edwards Tom Sent: 19 July 2013 18:42

To: Revel Virginie

Cc: Brown Janet (ST) Subject: 302 route test minutes

Hi Virginie, Sorry this has taken a while. Attached are the minutes of the 302 route test with changes John and I have agreed. The aim is for the minutes to be a reflection of the issues we found and the solutions that would be required for the proposal to happen, rather than including every comment from people about perceived issues. For instance, I’ve taken out the discussions about whether the Claremont Road stand is appropriate for double deck buses, as high frequency double deck route 36 already uses it. Come and find me next week (I’m not in Monday) if there is anything you want to discuss, and if not can you circulate please. Thanks Tom

-----Original Message----- From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 17 October 2013 11:57 To: Edwards Tom Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: Brent mtg 21/10/13 Tom Thanks for arranging the meetingM could you send a draft agenda to Jim and tell we'll send a note of our site visit tomorrow to aid discussion. Possible agenda items: 1. Work on potential diversion of route 302 (TfL) 2. Wider context (Both) 3. Brondesbury Park site issues (for discussion) 4. Next steps 5. AOB You might want to add/amend. If Jim wants to talk about separate matters with all present happy to do briefly under AOB otherwise suggest you/he carry on in a smaller meeting (if that suits you). Thanks John

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 02 October 2013 17:17 To: Barry John (ST)

Subject: Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road tree issues analysis

John, See attached for Brondesbury Park / Salusbury Road tree issues document. My view is that we advise Brent that we will cover the cost of remedial works should the diversion be implemented, and go ahead with the consultation. Thanks Tom

From: Barrett Laura

Sent: 17 May 2013 16:20 To: +BSM Minutes

Subject: BSM 399 - Minutes

Dear all, The latest BSM minutes are attached – these can also be accessed via the BSM ‘Minutes’ folder. Please remember that their contents remain CONFIDENTIAL within London Buses/TfL and caution should be exercised as to who, other than recipients receive this information. You will not receive a paper copy of these minutes. Regards, Laura

Laura Barrett Data Cleansing Assistant

L 10th Floor Zone 10Y1, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: Barry John (ST)

Sent: 28 June 2013 07:18 To: Edwards Tom

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: Fw: 302 route test 24 06 13 - minutes PR

Tom Can we discuss please. Thanks John From: Reucroft Peter (ST)

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 05:09 PM To: Barry John (ST); Edwards Tom

Cc: Revel Virginie Subject: 302 route test 24 06 13 - minutes PR

These are the draft minutes of the 302 test. Please let me have any comments or amendments. Happy to discuss. Regards Peter Peter Reucroft Performance Account Manager, London Buses. Palestra 10th Floor, 10Y1, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ.

From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 13 May 2013 10:02 To: Hall Chris (ST)

Subject: FW: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

Chris, Is there any scope for me to take up either of the bus consultations from this paper? Either the 302 or D7? Or is it taking on too much? The P5 really hasn’t got much more input from me, and its only the Stratford one that probably really only needs my attention. Can we have a quick chat tomorrow before you go to the team meeting? Cheers Lisa From: Bradley Peter (ST) Sent: 12 May 2013 23:19

To: Bradley Peter (ST); Mouncey Simon (ST); Birtill Oliver (ST); Farrow Nick (ST); Hall Chris (ST); Hall Robert (Coaches); Johnson Esther (ST); Lacey Claire; Murphy Gary (ST); O'Connor Stephen (ST);

Shirley Richard (ST); Van Der Nest Christian (ST); Figg Peter (ST); Howarth Peter (CORP);

Constantinou Mario (ST); Bowker David (Exc); Knight Hannah (ST); Jarman Matthew (ST); Tisdall Stephanie; Horsley Simon (ST); Hayter Phil (ST); Maskell Dan; Agutter Robert; Edwards David (TfL

Press Office); Spencer John (ST); Kearns Steve (ST C&E ); Thomas Dennis (ST); Alleguen Claire; Bamford Carla; Mann Colin; Howarth Peter (CORP); Kelly Elizabeth (ST); Mulholland Clare; Nicholls

Peter (LTB); Blake Andree; Davies Carole (TfL); Foster Stuart (ST); Barrett Gilmore (ST); Guernou Djamila; Peters Sara; Corbett Lisa; Carr David; Smith Christina (ST); Ryder Nancy; Barretta Georgina;

Myhill Jonathon; Canavan Debbie; Coupe John (ST); Patel Pinal; Howard Luke; Miles Andrew (ST)

Cc: Plowden Ben; Lock-wah-hoon Colette (ST) Subject: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

This note provides a brief summary of the outcomes at BSM and any specific actions. It does not go into the detail of the papers presented and therefore will need to be read in conjunction with the agenda and individual papers. If anyone requires electronic access to papers, please let Jonathan Cush in the Bus Performance team know. Outstanding Items from previous meetings I missed the very start of the meeting therefore did not get any update from Simon Horsley on route 365 (reallocation of hesitation point at Orchard Village, Narrow Way and route 126 (Re-routeing to Ringers Road) – Simon – can you assist please? There was no update on the 128 and Queen’s Hospital. Route 473 / 573 – London City Airport I referred to the meeting attended by Stephen O’Connor and myself with the airport. I explained that whilst the possibility of using Hartmann Road within the airport site was being actively explored, a considerable amount of work may need to be undertaken to bring it to an acceptable state for the regular use by buses and therefore unlikely to be ready until late summer / autumn. In the meantime the priorities were relocating the hesitation point / driver changeovers for 573 to North Woolwich and reviewing the afternoon school movements. Lewisham Gateway No further update at this stage. Watching brief.

Route 811 – Chelsea Flower Show shuttle from Victoria The meeting agreed the use of stop Z5 in Buckingham Palace Road subject to certain provisos. These have been subsequently discussed with Peter Nicholls. The service will be pro-actively monitored during the period of operation. Tendering issues No papers this week Major issues All papers approved / noted; specifics below Tendering Programme - Tranche 446 (routes 57, 65, 71, 85, 213, 265, 281, 371, 418 and 681) Paper approved; comments on individual routes as follows:

Route 65 – peak frequency enhancement and reliability measures especially Friday and Saturday night proposed. Night service numbering to be reviewed when service retendered in two years time.

Route 71 – further survey to be carried out in September 2013 to check on crowding at peak times.

Route 213 – ND to chase up later last journeys in route 154 from Croydon to Sutton; there is no proposal to re-extend the night service on the 213.

Route 281 – adequacy of service when significant rugby matches are played at Twickenham to be reviewed; in particular frequency of legs during split service.

Route 371 – ND to look at full double decking of route instead of the current mix of single and double deck buses.

Route 418 (and 406) – Frequency enhancements approved; short term mitigation of capacity issues to be investigated.

Route 302 – Diversion to Queens Park Route test to check trees issues and stand arrangements at Queens Park in particular, together with firm costs required before consultation commences. Full public consultation is likely to commence late August and run until early / mid October. Borough very keen to be involved with the consultation process (and therefore we should involve them in the pre consultation phase). Hannah – can you allocate please? Route 599 – Purley, Old Lodge Lane Shuttle Service Shuttle service awarded to Abellio to replace Reedham Station – Old Lodge Lane section of the 455 service from 1st June for approximately 4 months due to roadworks. Given the sensitivities, it may be worth discussing with Stakeholders (especially the East Surrey Transport Committee), what they envisage in terms of publicity. Dennis – can you take this forward with David Bowker please? Route 634 - Retender Service now to be retained permanently and will therefore be retendered. Barking Riverside – revised proposals Proposals now just consist of an extension of the EL1 from Thames View Estate to Barking Riverside, with route 387 remaining largely as now. However opportunity will be taken to consult on withdrawal of Creekmouth peak journeys on the 387, as these are now little used. A separate paper to be presented at next BSM. Dennis Thomas is taking this consultation on.

Route D7 – Frequency enhancement Given that there are frequency enhancements Monday to Friday peak and daytime, all evenings and Sundays suggest a simple on line stakeholder consultation (evenings and Sundays move from low to high frequency). Hannah – Can you allocate please? Minor Issues All papers approved; specifics below;. Route G1- Springfield Hospital Proposal that the G1 serves the stop at Springfield Hospital at all times approved (currently it only serves the hospital bus stop Monday to Friday daytimes; at other times it turns in a car park with no formal stop). Provisional date of 8th June; however Simon Thomas to check that access to the hospital grounds WILL be available during operational hours of the G1 from that date. ALL SSTT’s will need to be adjusted as they currently have an anomaly note detailing the stopping arrangements at Springfield Hospital. No other publicity required, although the e-tile at the hospital stop may need adjusting. John Spencer / Peter Figg / Dennis Thomas – to note Bus Stop Changes All approved; no specific issues. Additional Papers None presented. London Service Permits All approved; specifics below:

Go-ahead Routes 739 and 718. Peter Nicholls / Nick Farrow – can you confirm the set down and pick up arrangements at St Pancras please?

Historic Bus Running Days in Greater London Paper noted Health and Safety No issues. Any Other Business Nothing raised. Thanks Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery


Providing inspiration, strategic leadership and challenge to ensure the delivery of Surface

Transport outcomes

Mail: Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ

Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Bradley Peter (ST)


Cc: Hall Chris (ST) Subject: FW: Bus route 302

Lisa Did you respond to this? Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Grant James


Cc: Bradley Peter (ST)

Subject: RE: Bus route 302

Hi Lisa I think for now they just want a contact in Surface that they can find out the current position from and probably write to outlining their thoughts. Can I put them in touch with you? Thanks James James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 08 July 2013 09:53 To: Grant James

Cc: Bradley Peter (ST) Subject: RE: Bus route 302

Good morning James,

I’m afraid that there is still no news to give. Peter Bradley has been chasing Performance for the minutes from the route test. From talking with Peter last week, I think there maybe some pre-consultation discussions but not sure when or who they will be with just yet. Kind regards Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London

Providing inspiration, strategic leadership and challenge to ensure the delivery of Surface Transport outcomes

Mail: Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ Phone: Email:

From: Grant James



Hi Lisa Any news on this? Thanks James James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 27 June 2013 11:53 To: Grant James


Good morning James,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I’m hoping that we will have the results from the route test later on today. This will then form our decision as to when and if we consult. If we consult then we would be willing to meet with QPARA to discuss their comments. Hope this helps and as soon as I get the nod either way, I’ll let you know. Kind regards Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London


Mail: Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ Phone: Email: li

From: Grant James

Sent: 26 June 2013 13:16 To: Corbett Lisa

Subject: FW: Bus route 302

Hi Lisa Esther said you would be the best contact for this. I’ve been dealing with Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association about step-free access to Queen’s Park station. They’ve now contacted me about changes to the 302 bus route, which is not in my area of work. Essentially Peter is looking for a bit more information about our plans and ideally a meeting to discuss. They have also heard that the Kensal Rise association has a meeting with John Barry and would like one too. Would you mind picking this up? Many thanks James James Grant | Stakeholder Engagement Manager

NOTE NEW NUMBER: M: E: From: Peter Hay [mailto: Sent: 25 June 2013 23:23

To: Grant James Subject: Bus route 302

Dear James Grant, Thank you for the brief phone conversation earlier today. Just to confirm that Queens Area Park Residents Association (QPARA) would like to meet representatives of TfL to discuss the current ideas about re-routing Bus 302 to run via Salusbury Road to Queens Park station. You kindly said you would make some enquiries of TfL Surface Transport as to the current position regarding this route, and would come back to me. Peter Hay Transport Group QPARA

(10am-2pm)

From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 08 July 2013 11:31 To: Hall Chris (ST)


Chris, Would what James asked be ok, or would it be potentially opening up a nest of vipers? Is it better to ask them to write to Peter instead? Cheers Lisa From: Grant James



Hi Lisa I think for now they just want a contact in Surface that they can find out the current position from and probably write to outlining their thoughts. Can I put them in touch with you? Thanks James James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

E: j From: Corbett Lisa Sent: 08 July 2013 09:53

To: Grant James


Good morning James, I’m afraid that there is still no news to give. Peter Bradley has been chasing Performance for the minutes from the route test. From talking with Peter last week, I think there maybe some pre-consultation discussions but not sure when or who they will be with just yet. Kind regards Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery




From: Grant James Sent: 05 July 2013 14:55

To: Corbett Lisa


Hi Lisa Any news on this? Thanks James James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

M: E: From: Corbett Lisa Sent: 27 June 2013 11:53

To: Grant James


Good morning James, Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I’m hoping that we will have the results from the route test later on today. This will then form our decision as to when and if we consult. If we consult then we would be willing to meet with QPARA to discuss their comments. Hope this helps and as soon as I get the nod either way, I’ll let you know. Kind regards Lisa

Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London


Mail: Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ Phone: ) Email: l

From: Grant James



Hi Lisa Esther said you would be the best contact for this. I’ve been dealing with Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association about step-free access to Queen’s Park station. They’ve now contacted me about changes to the 302 bus route, which is not in my area of work. Essentially Peter is looking for a bit more information about our plans and ideally a meeting to discuss. They have also heard that the Kensal Rise association has a meeting with John Barry and would like one too. Would you mind picking this up? Many thanks James James Grant | Stakeholder Engagement Manager NOTE NEW NUMBER: M: E: From: Peter Hay [mailto ]


Subject: Bus route 302

Dear James Grant,

Thankyou for the brief phone conversation earlier today. Just to confirm that Queens Area Park Residents Association (QPARA) would like to meet representatives of TfL to discuss the current ideas about re-routing Bus 302 to run via Salusbury Road to Queens Park station. You kindly said you would make some enquiries of TfL Surface Transport as to the current position regarding this route, and would come back to me. Peter Hay Transport Group QPARA

(10am-2pm)



Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: Re: Bus route 302

Tom Thanks. By end of next week? John From: Edwards Tom Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 06:51 PM

To: Barry John (ST) Cc: Blitz Bob (ST)


John, I’ll evaluate this. Thanks Tom



Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: FW: Bus route 302

Tom Can we convert to sd? How many dd jnys would be needed? Thanks John From: Bradley Peter (ST) Sent: 27 June 2013 16:14

To: Barry John (ST)

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST); Edwards Tom; Corbett Lisa; Hall Chris (ST) Subject: RE: Bus route 302

John I spoke with Lisa this morning, who was on the route test. From what I understand there are significant issues with the trees which are mature Plains and potentially would cost significant sums of money to prune. Some are located by traffic islands which would not allow a double deck vehicle to pass unless the tree is pruned or the traffic island relocated. I also understand that the provision of a stand at Queens Park presents a number of challenges. I understand that the Brent representative on the route test agreed that there were significant challenges. Given this, I believe we need to continue the “pre-consultation” discussions with Brent to understand how we are proposing to resolve these issues before we can commence on any formal process. In the meantime I and my team are happy to assist with any pre consultation meetings either with the borough and / or local resident groups.

It would be helpful to see the formal notes of the meeting so that a more formal position can be established. Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Edwards Tom


Cc: Barry John (ST); Bradley Peter (ST); Blitz Bob (ST)


Lisa, We are awaiting the route test minutes, which Virginie is working on today. Once we get those I think it would be beneficial to get the ball rolling with the consultation, which will also give Queens Park Residents’ Association a forum for making their views known. Thanks Tom From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 26 June 2013 14:54

To: Corbett Lisa

Cc: Edwards Tom; Bradley Peter (ST); Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: RE: Bus route 302

Lisa It would be better to do the consultation! Is the drafting of that with you? Thanks John From: Corbett Lisa Sent: 26 June 2013 14:50

To: Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST)


Tom/John, Just so you are aware I’ve had the following from James Grant in Stakeholder Engagement. Can you keep me posted with any updates following the route test earlier this week?

John – Its seems the Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association are keen to meet with you too. Thanks Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London



From: Grant James Sent: 26 June 2013 13:16

To: Corbett Lisa Subject: FW: Bus route 302

Hi Lisa Esther said you would be the best contact for this. I’ve been dealing with Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association about step-free access to Queen’s Park station. They’ve now contacted me about changes to the 302 bus route, which is not in my area of work. Essentially Peter is looking for a bit more information about our plans and ideally a meeting to discuss. They have also heard that the Kensal Rise association has a meeting with John Barry and would like one too. Would you mind picking this up? Many thanks James James Grant | Stakeholder Engagement Manager NOTE NEW NUMBER:

M: E: From: Peter Hay [mailto ]




(10am-2pm)

From: Nick Waterman [mailto: @london.gov.uk]

Sent: 01 May 2013 16:19 To: Barry John (ST)

Subject: FW: Longstanding bus problems in Kensal Rise, London, NW10

John, Further to our chat earlier I’ve spoken to Isabel and agreed a redraft with her for a short cover response email from Isabel to Fiona. When this has been cleared it will be fine for you to send your longer response. The redraft is going up today so we should be able to confirm shortly when its gone. Nick: please can you send John a copy of the cleared response from Isabel when sent? Many thanks Victoria From: Kavanagh Clare (ST) [mailto @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 19 April 2013 13:22 To: Isabel Dedring

Cc: Victoria Hills; Nick Waterman; Anita Chen; Barry John (ST)

Subject: RE: Longstanding bus problems in Kensal Rise, London, NW10

Isabel Understood. Quick summary of the background : Last year (May) we provided is a very detailed review of usage made by passengers of every route through the area, and given this, and other practical issues such as physically possible alternatives, what options are or aren’t practical for changing these services. Fiona responded in September and there was a further exchange of emails with her in December. From this we are developing a major proposal for public consultation; to re-route the 302. This will have winner and losers and needs (relatively minor) physical on-street changes, hence careful discussion with the council is needed. However, this would reduce the number of buses in the part of Kensal Rise Fiona is most concerned about. I think it fair to say that while she will welcome this – she will continue to be dis-satisfied, hence, for example, the reference to ‘ghost buses’ (empty buses) despite the evidence of passenger usage we have supplied to her. We do need to directly address these issues and update on the 302. Therefore, may I suggest the way forward might be for you to respond along the lines below and John will then send the attached note directly to her to continue our discussions. Regards Clare ________________________________________ Dear Fiona

Thank you for your email. I understand from Clare and John that they have been progressing a proposal for route 302 and were awaiting further discussions with the Council before contacting you again. However, I have asked then to update you this week, on this and the wider issues from John’s report and your response to it. As you will appreciate, changes like this do require consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and hence can take a bit of time. TfL will, of course, be happy to meet again with you and other residents as part of this process. Please feel free to contact me again if I can help further. Best regards Isabel

Clare Kavanagh Director of Performance TfL London Buses 10th Floor, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ

office

mobile

From: Isabel Dedring [mailto: @london.gov.uk]

Sent: 19 April 2013 09:57

To: Kavanagh Clare (ST) Cc: Hills, Victoria; Nick Waterman; Anita Chen; Barry John (ST)

Subject: Re: Longstanding bus problems in Kensal Rise, London, NW10

Thanks Clare, but as the email came to me I need to respond to it myself. Happy to review a draft for me to send back. Victoria and Nick look after that process. Best regards From: Kavanagh Clare (ST) [mailto @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 06:11 PM To: Isabel Dedring


Isabel We will respond to this tomorrow, with copy to you. Regards Clare


office

mobile

From: Fiona [mailto: ] Sent: 17 April 2013 23:43

To: Isabel Dedring

Cc: Barry John (ST); Kavanagh Clare (ST); Mayor; Subject: Longstanding bus problems in Kensal Rise, London, NW10

Dear Isabel,

We hope you are well.

In December 2012, John Barry sent us a paper on TfL’s review of the bus problems in Kensal

Rise.

Kensal Rise Residents Association responded in great detail to this paper (see attached), as

we felt that the options put forward by TfL were not really going to resolve the problems of

too many empty buses (ghost buses) coming to Kensal Rise where they cause significant

congestion and noise.

As you know the problem of 12,000 plus (North and Southbound services) coming to Kensal

Rise on a weekly basis is and continues to have a significant negative impact on the quality of

life of residents, as the buses are noisy, heavy and so cause our properties to shake, and cause

severe congestion in the area.

Further, many of the buses travel to and from Kensal Rise for miles more or less empty so we

continue to question why they are sent to the area in first place, as this practice is clearly a

highly questionable use of tax payers’ monies, is not fair to Londoners as these hundreds of

more or less empty buses could be better deployed in areas where there is a need for such,

which there are many.

We have written to John and Clare Kavanagh on three occasions, asking for a response to the

paper we sent, as well as an update on how TfL is proposing to resolve the bus problems in

Kensal Rise?

Unfortunately, since John's paper in December 2012 we have not received any response or

acknowledgment to our correspondence from either John or Clare so we are left wondering

what is the position within TfL on the bus problems in Kensal Rise?

Is TfL going to do anything about this highly questionable use of valuable bus resources and

taxpayers’ monies? Are John and Clare still responsible for this matter and if not who is?

We look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Fiona and Hazel

On behalf of Kensal Rise Residents Association


Sent: 23 September 2013 09:45 To: Brown Janet (ST)

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST); Edwards Tom Subject: FW: Number of buses serving Kensal Rise area - 302 service

Janet For info and grateful if you can mention Ms Mulaisho’s comment on the 28 / 98 to the operators. (As before, the assurance is not that other buses would never use the road, but that it will be kept to a minimum). Is the 28 due to some one-off event – can’t see why they would ordinarily want to go this way? Thanks John PS I’ve included the chain so you can also see progress re the 302 but pls don’t forward further. Thanks. From: Fiona [mailto:

Sent: 21 September 2013 09:38 To: Barry John (ST)

Cc: Hazel williams Subject: Re: Number of buses serving Kensal Rise area - 302 service

Hello John, Hope you are well and many thanks Many thanks for your update on route 302. Now, we have noticed that buses from route 98 continue to travel on Chamberlayne Road despite reassurances that this would not happen. Also buses from 28 are now travelling frequently northbound beyond Kensal Rise station, which is not their scheduled route. Why is this happening? We would be grateful if you could review this with the operator. The 28 buses are "noticeable" because their engines or rather their cooling fans are faulty and so they produce the same high volumes of noise pollution, noise like a jet taking off, that was once typical of Metroline's buses. We trust that you can put an end to the above practices. And we wait to hear when the 302 consultation will commence. Regards, Fiona Regards, Fiona

From: Martin Angela (ST)

Sent: 13 June 2013 16:01 To: McShane Rosa (ST); McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST)

Subject: RE: Route 302

Just trying to be clear with what is required. This is what was proposed in the BSM paper: It is proposed to consult on a diversion of route 302 to Queen’s Park. Brent Council have been informed of the scheme’s outline and raised no significant issues at this stage. Consultation will allow the benefits and disbenefits of the scheme to be considered in the round, following which a further paper will be presented to the meeting recommending whether or not the scheme should be implemented.

Does this mean consultation needs to be done first? Or a mini is required for the consultation? Ange. From: McShane Rosa (ST) Sent: 13 June 2013 14:54

To: Martin Angela (ST); McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302

Well the update from last CPM was setting a target start date of first Sat in Apr 14 and there was already a note to say CD were doing Consultation. The SPM 283 minutes just say that the paper was going to the next BSM, which it did. From: Martin Angela (ST)

Sent: 13 June 2013 14:47

To: McShane Rosa (ST); McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302

I have a note that says minispec on hold from SPM. Chris Hall says their is political issues similar to the G1. I’ll add it to the list and get it done. From: McShane Rosa (ST)

Sent: 13 June 2013 14:43 To: McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST); Martin Angela (ST)

Subject: Route 302

This went to SPM 283 on 1st May and BSM 399 on 8th May.


Sent: 04 September 2013 18:18 To: Kavanagh Clare (ST)

Subject: Fw: Route 302 proposed consultation Importance: High

Clare Grateful if we can discuss this. Thanks John From: Pigott, Adrian [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 05:55 PM To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST); Lawman, James <J brent.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation

Dear Bob, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Senior officers and Brent’s Lead Member for Transportation agree that we are opposed to a joint (TfL/Brent Council) consultation on this issue. You will understand that the organisation cannot be seen to favour one group of residents over another and we are very aware from communications – mainly emails – that there are mixed views on this issue. A further consideration is that the Council could not afford to pay for highways and tree related works if the response to a consultation was in favour of TfL route changes to bus service 302. To summarise, Brent Council suggests that if it considers it necessary, TfL should lead on a regular consultation focussing on the issue of service provision and advise the Council of the outcome. If the result of a TfL led consultation favoured amendments to the existing route 302, the Council would seek to support necessary local (scheme) consultation and potential resultant highways works via the regular Council protocols, subject to additional funding. Kind regards, Adrian Pigott. Team Leader - Transport Planning. office: mobile:

Transportation Service Brent Council Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ

http://www.brent.gov.uk

On 29 Aug 2013, at 12:56, "Blitz Bob (ST)" @tfl.gov.uk> wrote:

Adrian

Could you please let me know where you’ve got to on this – a response by the end of the day would be appreciated. Thanks

Bob

From: Pigott, Adrian [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 20 August 2013 09:20

To: Blitz Bob (ST) Cc: Lawman, James; Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST)

Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation Dear Bob, Thanks for your email. There are obviously many implications for us to consider here as Highways Authority, hence I will liaise with some key colleagues and respond to you in due course. Many thanks, Adrian. Adrian Pigott. Team Leader - Transport Planning. office: mobile: Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ

http://www.brent.gov.uk From: Blitz Bob (ST) [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 19 August 2013 17:58

To: Pigott, Adrian Cc: Lawman, James; Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST)

Subject: Route 302 proposed consultation

Adrian, As you are aware, a route test was held in June to establish whether route 302 could be diverted to terminate at Queens Park. See attached for the minutes of this test.

The key points are:

The Claremont Road stand could be modified to successfully accommodate buses from routes 36 and 302.

Trees would require trimming along Salusbury Road and Brondesbury Park to allow double deck operation.

In approximately five locations, trunks overhang the road at a height that may lead to conflict with a double deck vehicle. In these cases, kerb buildouts would be appropriate to prevent this. In at least two instances, traffic islands would also require repositioning to allow a bus to negotiate the kerb buildout and the island without impediment.

As you will also be aware, it was agreed that a joint London Buses / LB Brent consultation would be conducted to establish public and stakeholder opinion about this scheme. With your agreement, we propose to go ahead with this consultation. The consultation would of course have to mention that the scheme is subject to the trimming of trees and the construction of kerb buildouts and traffic island repositioning. Happy to discuss further. Regards

Bob

Robert Blitz Network Planning Manager | TfL London Buses 10th Floor Zone 10R4, Palestra | 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ Tel: | Mobile: | Auto: Email: @tfl.gov.uk | Web: www.tfl.gov.uk

From: Andy Stroud [mailto: @metroline.co.uk]

Sent: 04 June 2013 13:34 To: Revel Virginie

Cc: Brown Janet (ST); Dec Finnegan (Metroline) Subject: Re: Route 302 route test

Hi Virginie Yes we use this to run buses light for the same reason (residents in chamberlayne Rd). There are a number of concerns that we would have with Trees that could be an issue if parking was not in place but more of an issue is the narrow section of shops in Salisbury Road between Harvist road to Montrose Ave where parking either side does not allow for two cars to pass. This would definitely require additional resource and create issues with service control options and reliability. As per my original email, if you can give us some dates and time it for after 1000am it should be fine. Look forward to hearing from you soon Andy Stroud Service Delivery Manager East - Holloway, Kings Cross, Willesden & Night Bus Services Mobile Landline Fax email @metroline.co.uk www.metroline.co.uk This electronic message contains information from Metroline Travel Ltd which may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email immediately (to the numbers or address above). All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail. Metroline Travel Ltd cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments and recommend that you implement virus checking procedures prior to use. Scanned by WatchGaurd

From: Revel Virginie <V @tfl.gov.uk> To: Andy Stroud

Cc: Brown Janet (ST) < @tfl.gov.uk>; Dec Finnegan Sent: Tue Jun 04 12:40:59 2013

Subject: RE: Route 302 route test Hi Andy Apologies for the late reply. When you say that buses on routes 6 and 98 run out of service via this route, do you mean that they use the section of Brondesbury Park currently not served by buses? We’ve reviewed bus services in the area following complaints received from residents in Kensal Rise about the number of buses traversing Chamberlayne Road in LB Brent and are

proposing to divert route 302. We will need to test the proposed re-routeing from Willesden Green Library to Queen’s Park. Kind regards Virginie From: Andy Stroud [mailto @metroline.co.uk]

Sent: 09 May 2013 16:28

To: Revel Virginie Cc: Brown Janet (ST); Dec Finnegan (Metroline)

Subject: RE: Route 302 route test

Virginie We could do any days but would have to be after 10:00am, just to let you know that buses (6 , 98) are run out of service via this route. We are more than happy to still perform a route test to satisfy everyone. Can you advise me the reason behind this, how long it is likely to be? Many thanks

Andy Stroud Service Delivery Manager East Holloway, Kings Cross, Willesden & Night Bus Services Tel: Mobile: Fax: Email: At Metroline, we are committed to the preservation of the environment. We ask that you print this email only if it is absolutely necessary

From: Revel Virginie [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 09 May 2013 16:22 To: Andy Stroud

Cc: Brown Janet (ST) Subject: Route 302 route test

Importance: High

Hi Andy I need to set up a route test fairly quickly for the 302. We are proposing to divert the route from Willesden Green Library to Queen’s Park Station via Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road and require to test the section of Brondesbury Park currently not served by buses as it has speed cushions. Also, Brondesbury Park and

Salusbury Road are lined with mature trees and we need to establish whether they need trimming. Can you give me some dates when a vehicle would be available? Many thanks Virginie Revel Performance Support Manager - Transport for London - Surface Transport - Performance Palestra - zone 10R2 - 197 Blackfriars Road - London - SE1 8NJ Tel: Mobile: Fax: Email: Web: http://www.tfl.gov.uk


From: Revel Virginie

Sent: 22 July 2013 12:50 To: Conway Tony (ST); Corbett Lisa; 'Lawman, James'; Andy Stroud (Metroline)

Cc: Reucroft Peter (ST); Edwards Tom

Subject: Route 302 route test minutes Importance: High

Dear all Please find attached the minutes of the route test which was carried out on 24 June. Apologies for the delay. If you have any questions, please let me know. Kind regards Virginie Virginie Revel Performance Support Manager - Transport for London - Surface Transport - Performance Palestra - zone 10Y1 - 197 Blackfriars Road - London - SE1 8NJ Tel: Mobile: Fax: Email: Web: http://www.tfl.gov.uk


From: Reucroft Peter (ST)

Sent: 28 June 2013 12:12 To: Barry John (ST)

Cc: Edwards Tom Subject: FW: Route 302 test

John For your info, my response to the borough officer. Thanks Peter From: Reucroft Peter (ST)

Sent: 28 June 2013 12:09 To: 'Lawman, James'; Revel Virginie

Cc: Edwards Tom; Brown Janet (ST); 'Pigott, Adrian'; Conway Tony (ST)

Subject: RE: Route 302 test

Jim The way forward is still being reviewed internally before a decision is made on what the next steps on this are. I am sorry that I am unable to give you a timescale on this either. Thanks Peter Peter Reucroft Performance Account Manager, London Buses. Palestra 10th Floor, 10Y1, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ.

From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk] Sent: 28 June 2013 11:34

To: Revel Virginie

Cc: Edwards Tom; Reucroft Peter (ST); Brown Janet (ST); Pigott, Adrian; Conway Tony (ST) Subject: Route 302 test

Virginie I am receiving enquiries like this and would therefore appreciate the outcome of Monday’s route test as soon as possible? I thought re-routing 302 to Queen’s Park station presented so many difficulties that we need not even proceed to a formal consultation; but that is my opinion bearing in mind too that this situation is caused by a small group of residents in the Kensal Rise area who are also now objecting to a traffic management scheme in Chamberlayne Road into whose design they have contributed! Regards

Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I will be based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ from 22 July. Telephone numbers and email addresses will remain unchanged.

From: Cummins, Cllr.Mark Sent: 27 June 2013 18:45

To: Lawman, James Subject: Fwd: Query - bus route changes in Staverton Road?

Dear James Could you please give an update on this matter? Kind regards Mark

Mark Cummins Liberal Democrat Councillor for Brondesbury Park Ward London Borough of Brent

From: Hall Chris (ST)

Sent: 01 May 2013 15:46 To: Bradley Peter (ST); Knight Hannah (ST)

Subject: SPM

Hi Peter I raised the points you gave me, the answers given are as follows:

N65 – will be referred to as such in the tranche paper, but a discussion will be had at BSM

The late journeys on route 154 are not being progressed at this time

Route 281 – the solution is offered in the last line of para 63, essentially as the route is being retendered, contracts/specs will ensure that enough resource to maintain a reliable schedule during rugby matches is offered as part of the bids

The short term solution for the 481 depends on tendering, if the incumbent operator gets the route then the new schedule will be brought in early

Route G1 changes at the hospital will come in, in July. Plenty of time for us to engage Route 343 – we will aim for an August introduction ELT – This scheme has now changed entirely. Essentially all it will be now is an extension of the EL1 to Galleons Drive. Route 387 will remain as it is for the next few years whilst further development comes on stream. It allows TfL a better chance of getting the infrastructure that they were promised and will concentrate the review around the opening of the new Secondary School in 2015 Route 302 rerouteing – this should go to BSM next week so will need to be allocated. Route D7 – I said that we won’t be consulting on the frequency increase. Any other questions let me know Cheers Chris Hall | Consultation Specialist | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London


Mail: Palestra 11G9, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ Phone: Email: Mobile:


Sent: 20 June 2013 17:44 To: Jones Richard (ST)

Subject: FW: Transport Committee response

Richard The thanks below also apply to you. Thanks John From: Peters James Sent: 20 June 2013 17:25

To: Barry John (ST) Cc: Gardner Keith (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Phillips Alex (ST)

Subject: RE: Transport Committee response

John My email to Laura and Jo is attached for your reference. I also enclose a rare email of gratitude from Laura’s manager for the work you and your team put into this and for turning it around so quickly. Jamie

James Peters

GLA Relations Manager

Government and Stakeholder Relations

Group Public Affairs

TfL

Tel:

Mob:

Fax:

Email:

From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 20 June 2013 17:16

To: Peters James Cc: Gardner Keith (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Phillips Alex (ST)


Jamie Could you forward me a copy of the email that went to Laura etc, just for reference purposes. Thanks John From: Peters James

Sent: 19 June 2013 14:52 To: Barry John (ST)

Cc: Gardner Keith (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Phillips Alex (ST)


John I have passed on in soft copy to the Committee. As discussed, it’s also customary to send a hard copy but I would only send the letter as the attachments may be a bit unruly in hard copy. Many thanks to all involved for pulling this together. Jamie

James Peters




TfL

Tel:

Mob:

Fax:

Email:


Sent: 19 June 2013 08:47 To: Peters James

Cc: Gardner Keith (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Phillips Alex (ST)

Subject: Transport Committee response

Jamie Here are the files for the response to the committee. I’d be grateful if you could hold off sending until we can talk again at lunchtime or thereabouts – there’s a question (about procedure) which I’d like to discuss with you first. Thanks John


Sent: 20 May 2013 19:39 To: Kavanagh Clare (ST)

Subject: FW: Video of TfL's questionable bus practices in Kensal Rise, Chamberlayne Road

Clare For info, below is a reply to the “video email”, as just sent out. (I decided to attach the passenger numbers to this reply rather than my reply to the first incoming email from last Thursday. However I still need to reply to other points so wd still appreciate a discussion on that, particularly re the proposed meeting). Thanks John From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 20 May 2013 19:36

To: 'fiona mulaisho' Cc: Hazel williams;

Subject: RE: Video of TfL's questionable bus practices in Kensal Rise, Chamberlayne Road

Fiona Thank you for sending me the video. We’re also unhappy that the buses were delayed in this way. It was caused by emergency repairs needed to a gas pipe in Ladbroke Grove, just south of the Harrow Road, with the problem starting last Tuesday afternoon (14 h May). Temporary traffic lights had to be put in to allow the repairs to go ahead and this affected the bus routes along Chamberlayne Road, amongst others. We liaised with the council to see what could be done to keep buses and other traffic flowing but naturally the traffic authorities have limited flexibility in these circumstances. I supplied passenger numbers for all the local routes in section 3 of the note I sent in May 2012. These numbers come from our user surveys. (I’ve attached a copy, for convenience). While I don’t agree that what’s in the video is typical (and nor do I agree with the conclusions you’ve drawn about accidents, congestion, value, etc), I’m pleased to see from your other email on Thursday evening that you’re encouraged by our development of a plan to consult on potential changes to route 302. I think that this shows we’re very much listening to your concerns and I’ll certainly keep you up to date on the consultation, as promised. There were a number of additional points and queries in that email and I’ll respond to those as soon as possible. Regards John John Barry Head of Network Development TfL-London Buses 020 3054 0544

From: Tim Steer [mailto: @london.gov.uk]

Sent: 19 June 2013 15:48 To: Peters James

Subject: FW: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

Jamie

A big thank you to you and your buses colleagues for pulling together this information so quickly. Tim

From: Peters James Sent: 19 June 2013 14:45

To: 'Jo Sloman' Cc: 'Laura Warren'

Subject: FW: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

Hi Jo Please find attached a soft copy (plus attachments) of our written evidence to the Committee’s investigation on bus services. A hard copy will follow in the post. There’s quite a lot of material here so please let John or I know if you have any questions or need anything further. Best wishes Jamie

James Peters




TfL

Tel:

Mob:

Fax:

Email:

From: Peters James

Sent: 18 June 2013 16:58 To: 'Jo Sloman'

Cc: 'Laura Warren' Subject: RE: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

Hi Jo

Just to update you on this, the written evidence is approved but John’s team is just checking some of the data files that will be included as attachments. We’ll get a soft copy through to you asap tomorrow. Jamie

James Peters




TfL

Tel:

Mob:

Fax:

Email:

From: Jo Sloman [mailto: @london.gov.uk] Sent: 03 June 2013 11:01

To: Peters James Subject: RE: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

HI Jamie, Thanks for your email and for letting us know that Leon Daniels and John Barry will be present as observers at the Committee’s meeting on Thursday. Thanks also for confirming Leon and Clare’s availability for the 2nd July meeting. We would be very grateful if you could send the written evidence by next Friday 14th, but if this is not possible, I’ll let colleagues know that we will expect it on the 19th. It’d be helpful if you could confirm next week when it will be ready. Thanks again, Jo From: Peters James [mailto @tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 30 May 2013 16:52

To: Jo Sloman Subject: RE: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

Dear Jo Thank you for your email and the clarification on the areas we asked about. I’ve passed this on to John Barry. He’s on leave this week but he’s still in contact and we’ll come back to you as soon as possible if there are any difficulties with this and he thinks further discussion is needed on how some of this material can be presented in a way that would be helpful to the Committee.

I can now confirm that Leon Daniels, Managing Director of Surface Transport and John Barry, Head of Network Development, will attend the Committee’s first meeting on 6 June 2013 to listen to the discussion and contribute if required. Leon and Clare Kavanagh, Director of Performance, London Buses will attend the second meeting on 2 July 2013 to answer the Committee’s questions. We would still be grateful for a short extension to the 14 June deadline for the written evidence. We will, of course, work towards 14 June but ideally we would like to provide all the information at once and we feel 19 June would be a more realistic date given the information required. As mentioned previously, we want to give the Committee enough time to prepare for the July meeting but this would allow us to provide a more comprehensive response to each point raised.

Best wishes Jamie

James Peters




TfL

Tel:

Mob:

Fax:

Email:

From: Jo Sloman [mailto: @london.gov.uk]

Sent: 29 May 2013 13:53 To: Peters James

Subject: RE: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

Hi Jamie Thanks for your email and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’ve discussed it with colleagues and we have the following feedback - Normalising data In our request for information, where it says "per bus route", we are looking for the data "for every bus route". We’re interested in the data on passenger numbers past and forecast for each route rather than the number of routes per se. Hopefully, the following re-wording captures what the data we’d like for bullet points 5 and 6:

For each bus route, the average number of passengers using that route a day, (based upon weekday usage only) and shown for each year from 2000/1 to 2012/13

For each bus route, the average number of passengers forecast to use that route a day, (based upon weekday usage only) and shown for each year from 2013/14 to 2029/30

Surveys Instead of listing by individual survey, it would be useful to have these data at route level. Although I realise this will be a long list of 700+ routes (as with the above), the Committee is interested in seeing information about the surveys that have been undertaken on each route since 2010. On the deadline, it may be that some of the information is easier to compile – the top 4 bullet points, along with 7, 8 and 10 for example. We’d be grateful if you could send that information in the first section, along with the information in the second and third sections. For the remaining data, we could extend the deadline to the following week, but we would really need to get it then to be able to use it for the discussion. For the outstanding data, could we agree close of play on Wednesday 19th June? Grateful if you could let me know if the above is possible. If this information isn’t available in the format we’ve requested, perhaps it could be helpful to meet with John Barry to discuss how it can be supplied in a way that is useful for the Committee. Let me know if this would be helpful. Thanks Jo From: Peters James [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 28 May 2013 12:14

To: Jo Sloman Subject: RE: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

Hi Jo Thanks again (I think!) for sending through the letter on the bus service investigation. I understand we’re getting Val on a bus tomorrow to launch it. We will reply asap with confirmation of who will be attending the two meetings and we’re also getting on with compiling answers to your questions. I’ve discussed with John Barry and we’re fine with those in the main. However, he has asked me to come back to you on two points:

Normalising usage data We don’t use “number of routes” as a denominator for normalising usage data. That’s because the “number of routes” changes in ways that are not directly proportional to changes in the level of service (as measured in bus-km). For example, we could renumber a school day journey on a route, to reflect that it serves a slightly different set of stops from all the other journeys, eg to get closer to a school, but in this instance the number of routes has increased but the level of service hasn’t changed. Or, we could develop a service into a new housing area by a

substantial extension of an existing route. In this scenario, the number of routes doesn’t change but the level of service has increased significantly. Also, some routes run twice a day, whereas others have hundreds of journeys each day. So, although we can of course count the number of route numbers which exist from time to time, we don’t store it systematically over the years. And, for the reasons above, it doesn’t really work for normalisation. We would suggest providing you with a direct measure of service, such as bus-km. Surveys We are asked to supply details of all surveys since 2010, at route number and date level. We are of course happy to supply what’s needed but, in the form described, this list will be very long (> 2000 entries). Preparing a readable list, will therefore take some time. Is there a more succinct way that we can supply information on our surveying activities which would still meet the needs of the committee?

Happy to discuss any of this if that would be helpful. I’ve also been asked if there is any scope for extending the deadline for the written info to the week commencing 17 June? I’m conscious you need to prepare for the July meeting so would definitely need it that week, and I’ve stressed to colleagues we would need to commit to making a revised deadline should you be amenable to that. Again happy to discuss. Thanks very much Jamie

James Peters




TfL

Tel:

Mob:

Fax:

Email:

From: Laura Warren [mailto @london.gov.uk]

Sent: 23 May 2013 15:27

To: Peters James Cc: Ross Jardine; Jo Sloman

Subject: Transport Committee letter to Peter Hendy re bus services investigation

Hi Jamie

As discussed, please find attached the letter from Val to Peter regarding the Transport Committee’s bus services investigation. Also attached is a copy of the scoping report which is the enclosure referred to in the letter. Hard copies of the letter and scoping report are on the way in the post too. Please do let me know if it would be helpful to discuss this. Many thanks Laura

Laura Warren Scrutiny Manager London Assembly City Hall The Queen's Walk London, SE1 2AA

Telephone:

From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 21 May 2013 14:21 To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Fazekas, Sandor; Edwards Tom Subject: Kensal Rise bus routes

Thanks Bob Ms. Mulaisho knows we plan to consult on route 302 soon. The big unknown is how our council leader reacts to her requests. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council

Mobile: www.brent.gov.uk From: Blitz Bob (ST) [mailto @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 21 May 2013 14:02 To: Lawman, James

Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Fazekas, Sandor; Edwards Tom Subject: RE: Kensal Rise bus routes

Jim As you know from our recent meeting we are have been looking at an option for diverting route 302 away from Chamberlayne Road to run from Willesden High Road via Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road to Queens’ Park. We are shortly to consult on this proposal. At part of this work we looked at changing other services in the area, but we concluded that diverting route 302 would be the best option to carry forwards. Thanks Bob From: Lawman, James [mailto: brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 21 May 2013 13:10 To: Blitz Bob (ST); Edwards Tom

Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Fazekas, Sandor

Subject: Kensal Rise bus routes Importance: High

Bob/Tom

I don’t think there is anything confidential here, indeed much of the content came from you; but as you see Ms. Mulaisho has asked to see our Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, at one of the times listed below. I have been asked to take part. One thought I had is that in the past diverting route 452 from Kensal Rise to Harlesden has been mentioned; indeed I think Tom opined at our Wembley Bus Strategy meeting last week that the busiest section of route 18 is Harrow Road up to Harlesden. Therefore is there any prospect of that re-routing of 452 being reconsidered, possibly to Willesden Junction station, where space was freed up when 224 switched to St. Raphael’s and PR2 was withdrawn in October 2011? I know it would stretch a long route from Wandsworth, but by my reckoning no longer in time than the 83-minute end-to-end off-peak journey time of route 83. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council

Mobile: www.brent.gov.uk

From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]


Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Blitz Bob (ST); Conway Tony (ST); Fazekas, Sandor; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Bharj, Gurdev

Subject: Kensal Rise buses

Thanks Tom You may as well read the (welcome) message from the resident (who works for Lambeth Council) to Glenda Jackson MP and her three ward councillors:- Dear Councillors/Member of Parliament I am a resident of Kensal Rise on Hanover Road. I am concerned with regard to publicity currently given to Kensal Rise Residents Association who seem to be calling for a re-route or scrapping of the 302 bus route along Chamberlayne Road. Kensal Rise incorporates both Brondesbury ward and Queens Park ward but the suggestion for the 302 impacts directly on the Brondesbury ward. They refer to ‘ghost buses’ running along this route/road and the recent article in the Kilburn Times had a picture of a train of buses along Chamberlayne Road. I use the buses on this road every day in my commute to work and I know the problems there have been with buses stuck and backed up – usually because of road works or some form of temporary traffic control in place further down the Rise or even Harrow Road/Ladbroke Grove. Usually exacerbated by the huge number of single occupancy cars that use this road as a through route. (Now that is something that could be addressed) I am concerned that momentum toward a scrapping of the 302 through Kensal Rise could be gathering when in fact KRRA only speak for those who attend their meetings – something I have not yet had the opportunity to do but will be availing myself of for the next meeting. To remove the 302 from Kensal Rise would leave anyone wanting to travel beyond Willesden with no option but to change in Willesden – this is simply not acceptable. We have the 6 and 52 routes both terminating in Willesden and to take away our only other option would leave those of us who rely on buses rather than cars in a dire situation. For those with children or difficulties walking it would be disastrous. Those in favour of scrapping the 302 quote statistics of number of passengers along this section of the route and compare it with those on the 52. This is of course not a like for like analysis - this section of the 302 route represents the beginning and end of the route. As I have stated to them in my online replies what kind of service would it be to those further along the route if it left Kensal Rise full each time? Of course it will be emptier as it nears the end of it’s route – have you seen more than 3 passengers exit a 36 bus as it terminates at Queens Park? I haven’t but I have seen upwards of 20+ people getting off a 302 at Kensal Rise in the morning. That said there are many times when the 302 does indeed fill up at Kensal Rise – come along of an evening to see for yourselves. We are told Chamberlayne Road is a single carriageway and cannot facilitate so many bus routes. I would counter by pointing out that the section of Chamberlayne Road north of Kensal Rise is the widest part of the road and can easily facilitate these buses. I would suggest this section of Chamberlayne Road can accommodate the 302 better than Sidmouth

Road and Salisbury Road; this representing the alternative route to be proposed. On exiting Staverton Road the bus will turn left and then right onto Salisbury Road with a termination point at Queens Park. The road south of Kensal Rise station is a different matter and the road is quite narrow and busy. Hence my suggestion that if they want to look at any routes to be removed they should look at:

the 452 which overlaps with the 52 for more than ¾’s of it’s journey into central London.

the 28 which was extended into Kensal Rise in recent years and crosses the 52/452 at Notting Hill Gate.

I am confused why they have chosen the 302 as a target when the other 2 routes beginning and ending in the Rise seem much more problematic – unless of course they do not go past their houses. I cannot help but feel that what is going on here is analogous to moving to Hillingdon and then complaining about aircraft noise – knowing you don’t have to use said aircraft as your private jet sits in a hangar nearby. The 302 is a great link to the Overground station at Kensal Rise for those further north, thus providing access to this great orbital rail route. Brent have centralised all their services at the ‘civic centre’ in Wembley and this is the only route from Kensal Rise that goes anywhere near there. For those of us in the south of the borough access to this ‘civic centre’ is already problematic yet Brent have moved all their services there. I therefore want to ensure that you are aware of this issue and that you recognise that for many constituents, who have no access to private transport, these links are so important. Should there be any suggestion that services be changed I would expect every attempt be made to consult with a wide cross section of residents. Many of those reliant on these bus routes are the people unlikely to get out to a residents meeting and often have no voice in the community. Their silence should not make them invisible, it should make us realise we need to work harder to reach them. Many thanks for your time.

I have replied to this resident and the councillor who forwarded it to me. I do not think you can add anything at this stage; I have pointed out that the joint-consultation will take place shortly, subject to the route test being successful. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile:

www.brent.gov.uk From: Edwards Tom [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 11 June 2013 17:47 To: Lawman, James

Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Blitz Bob (ST); Conway Tony (ST); Fazekas, Sandor; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Bharj,

Gurdev Subject: RE: Kensal Rise buses

Thanks for this Jim. If you could pass me details of the proposed traffic management scheme for Chamberlayne Road that would be appreciated. Obviously I’m happy for Tony to provide our comments, but we would want to ensure there are no planning implications. Also, could you pass me details of the concern raised by the resident to the 302 scheme? Thanks Tom From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk]


Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Blitz Bob (ST); Conway Tony (ST); Fazekas, Sandor; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Bharj, Gurdev


Tom Thanks for your message. I think this has been hacked around from the original press release written jointly by my colleague Adrian Pigott and our Comms. team:- "The council has established a good working relationship with the Kensal Rise Residents Association (KRRA) and we are currently working alongside them to develop new traffic management arrangements for the area. "We have made TfL aware of residents' concerns about the number of buses in the area but we have no direct influence over London Buses and the local bus network. London Buses have agreed to formally consult on changing route 302 from Kensal Rise to Queens Park which could result in few buses using Chamberlayne Road. However, this is a consultation and TfL will have to consider both residents’ and bus users' responses before reaching a decision. "It is important to remember that Chamberlayne Road is a classified "B road" which forms a vital link between the A4003 and the A404 and the whole of the road network serving the borough. "Brent Council is a robust proponent of sustainable transport, one of very few options for reducing private car generated traffic congestion and associated pollution across the

borough. Large numbers of passengers using bus services such as the 302 need to connect from Willesden to the Overground North London line at Kensal Rise.

"Bus routes 187, 28, 452, 52 and 6 also serve Kensal Rise and offer important connections for large volumes of people who do not wish to or cannot afford to drive a car, but still need to travel in London. The council would not support any action which resulted in reducing any form of public transport provision that might inconvenience existing or future public transport users." To the best of my knowledge, Tony Conway has already given his comments on your behalf as a key stakeholder and objected to changes planned at the bus stop at Kensal Rise, which have therefore been dropped. I also believe that he is satisfied with the proposed 20 mph speed limit. I am happy though to provide you with further information if you need it? Interestingly, I have just received an email from a resident strongly objecting to the idea of rerouting 302 away from Kensal Rise. I shall of course reply that the consultation awaits the successful outcome of the route test and being a joint-consultation we (Brent) will not be sending a response. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk From: Edwards Tom [mailto @tfl.gov.uk]


Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Blitz Bob (ST); Conway Tony (ST) Subject: RE: Kensal Rise buses

Jim, Thanks for sending this through. The article states – a spokesman for Brent Council

said that although it has no direct control over bus arrangements, it is working alongside KRRA to develop new traffic management arrangements and has made TfL aware of the concerns. You mentioned to me verbally that a 20 mph speed limit was being considered on a section of Chamberlayne Road, and that Tony Conway was aware of this, but could you provide me with full details of the scheme? Assuming you will want our comments on the proposal as a key stakeholder? Thanks Tom


Sent: 03 June 2013 14:50 To: Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Pigott, Adrian Subject: Kensal Rise buses

Bob/Tom The article in the ‘Kilburn Times’ that I mentioned on the phone to Tom last week has now appeared on their website:_ http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/residents in kensal rise claim area is overrun with ghost buses 1 2218458 Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk

From: Blitz Bob (ST)

Sent: 26 June 2013 09:32 To: +NetworkDevelopment; +Specifications Team (London Buses)

Subject: Performance Operational Report Period 2

Performance Operational report attached. Regards Bob From: Irish Tamika (ST)

Sent: 24 June 2013 11:17 To: Kavanagh Clare (ST); Barry John (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Crockford Jonathan (ST); Driscoll Cary;

London Paul (ST); McLellan Ian (ST); McShane Rosa (ST); Moffat Alex (ST); O'Kane Brian (ST); Reed Simon - (ST); Salmon Keith (LBSL); +TSGSeniorManagers; Thomas Simon (ST); Panesar Dee; Chaffer

Martyn (ST); Dawes Andy (LTBuses); O'Donovan Mark (ST) Subject: Performance Operational Report Period 2.doc

Dear all Please find attached the final version of the Period 2 Performance Operational Report for your records

Regards Tamika From: Irish Tamika (ST)

Sent: 05 June 2013 16:00 To: Kavanagh Clare (ST); Barry John (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Panesar Dee; London Paul (ST); McLellan

Ian (ST); Moffat Alex (ST); Thomas Simon (ST); Reed Simon - (ST); Streeter Adrian (ST); O'Kane Brian (ST)

Subject: Performance Operational Report Period 2.doc

Dear all Please print and take the attached to tomorrow’s Departmental Meeting Tamika From: Blitz Bob (ST) Sent: 07 August 2013 13:27

To: +NetworkDevelopment; +Specifications Team (London Buses)

Subject: Performance Operational Report Period 4

P4 Performance Operational Report attached Regards From: Irish Tamika (ST)

Sent: 31 July 2013 16:39

To: Kavanagh Clare (ST); Barry John (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Panesar Dee; London Paul (ST); McLellan Ian (ST); Moffat Alex (ST); Thomas Simon (ST); Reed Simon - (ST); O'Donovan Mark (ST); O'Kane

Brian (ST) Subject: Performance Operational Report Period 4va.doc

Dear all Please print and take the attached to the Departmental Meeting. Regards Tamika

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 16 July 2013 15:50 To: Johnson Esther (Correspondence)

Subject: Pigs

Hello.

1. Can I point out that there are no outstanding issues I owe you an answer to. 2. Can I draw your attention to the below email. 3. What do you say about that eh?

From: ND Correspondence

Sent: 04 July 2013 18:17 To: Edwards Tom

Subject: RE: 1012545818 - Customer Service Contact - Chamberlayne Road

How about an aggregate supply once all my emails are responded to!!! From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 04 July 2013 18:15 To: ND Correspondence


Percy Pig? From: ND Correspondence



As I live and breathe – 1 day turn around!!!!! From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 04 July 2013 18:11

To: ND Correspondence Subject: RE: 1012545818 - Customer Service Contact - Chamberlayne Road

Hi Esther, We are currently evaluating a potential scheme to divert route 302 from Willesden Library to Queens Park Station. This is part of our normal day-to-day work; we evaluate many schemes across London that are initiated through a variety of channels, some of which will be taken forward and some of which will not. In the case of the 302, if the diversion is feasible and meets our cost-benefit criteria then we are proposing to carry out a consultation to gauge the level of support for the change. This is likely to take the form of a maildrop to all addresses in the vicinity of roads that the route will no longer serve and roads that will be newly served, while holders of registered oyster cards who use route 302 will be emailed. The consultation will also be open for anyone to view or comment on at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/. If consultation on the scheme does go ahead then both Glenda Jackson MP and the customer are encouraged to make their views known.

Thanks Tom From: ND Correspondence


Subject: FW: 1012545818 - Customer Service Contact - Chamberlayne Road

Hi Tom As discussed, given this is a contentious issue, I would appreciate your comments. Kind regards Esther.

Esther Johnson | Transport for London Network Development and Performance | London Buses Email: Tel:

From: @TFL.GOV.UK [mailto: @TFL.GOV.UK]

Sent: 27 June 2013 16:34

To: ND Correspondence Subject: 1012545818 - Customer Service Contact

Hand-off Task Form

CUSTOMER DETAILS Name: Miss Address: , Postal Code: Country: GB EMAIL: Hand-Off : Action Required Task Details Task Reference No: 1012545818 Response Due Date: 04/07/2013 Description: (302) (302) Change to route Tfl requestor: Sergino Bright Hi ND Please see letter from Glenda Jackson MP concerning the withdrawing of route 302 from Kensal Rise. I would appreciate your comments. Thanks

From: Nichols Daniel


Subject: RE: 302 BODS

Don’t celebrate too soon. There’s still a large back log of surveys to be processed, hopefully it can be prioritised quickly. From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 04 July 2013 16:53 To: Nichols Daniel


Cheers Daniel, good news! From: Nichols Daniel Sent: 04 July 2013 16:53

To: Gray John (ST) Cc: Edwards Tom


Hi John The most recent survey available for route 302 on BODS is 2006. I can see that a survey has been completed on 09/11/2012 for the route. Can you tell me when this is likely to be uploaded and whether or not we could prioritise it? Daniel Nichols | Transport Planner | Network Development |

Transport for London | London Buses | Performance | Surface Transport

Palestra | Floor 10 – Zone R3 | 197 Blackfriars Road | London | SE1 8NJ Tel (Auto): | External: | Email:

From: Edwards Tom


Subject: 302 BODS

Hi Daniel, Route 302 hasn’t had a BODS survey since 2006. Is there a reason it couldn’t be done over the last few years, and is there one planned? Could do with getting it done ASAP to be honest! Thanks Tom

From: Smith Christina (ST)

Sent: 18 June 2013 14:06 To: Knight Hannah (ST)

Subject: RE: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

Thanks Hannah I was going like the clappers on it... From: Knight Hannah (ST)

Sent: 18 June 2013 13:22 To: Smith Christina (ST)


Hi Christina Just to let you know that Peter said in today’s Direct Report meeting that we no longer needed to consult on the D7 – it’s a good job it didn’t take you very long to compile and that we couldn’t email yesterday! One less scheme to think about and remember to analyse! Thanks Hannah From: Knight Hannah (ST)

Sent: 17 June 2013 11:47

To: Smith Christina (ST) Subject: RE: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

Here’s an example – we haven’t done one of these for a while! Ta From: Smith Christina (ST) Sent: 17 June 2013 11:37

To: Knight Hannah (ST)


Hi Hannah Do we have a template for frequency enhancements please? Thanks C From: Johnson Esther (ST)

Sent: 14 May 2013 14:53 To: Smith Christina (ST)

Cc: Knight Hannah (ST) Subject: FW: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

Hi Christina See below the details regarding the D7 stakeholder consultation.

Kind regards Esther From: Bradley Peter (ST)

Sent: 12 May 2013 23:19 To: Bradley Peter (ST); Mouncey Simon (ST); Birtill Oliver (ST); Farrow Nick (ST); Hall Chris (ST);

Hall Robert (Coaches); Johnson Esther (ST); Lacey Claire; Murphy Gary (ST); O'Connor Stephen (ST); Shirley Richard (ST); Van Der Nest Christian (ST); Figg Peter (ST); Howarth Peter (CORP);

Constantinou Mario (ST); Bowker David (Exc); Knight Hannah (ST); Jarman Matthew (ST); Tisdall

Stephanie; Horsley Simon (ST); Hayter Phil (ST); Maskell Dan; Agutter Robert; Edwards David (TfL Press Office); Spencer John (ST); Kearns Steve (ST C&E ); Thomas Dennis (ST); Alleguen Claire;

Bamford Carla; Mann Colin; Howarth Peter (CORP); Kelly Elizabeth (ST); Mulholland Clare; Nicholls Peter (LTB); Blake Andree; Davies Carole (TfL); Foster Stuart (ST); Barrett Gilmore (ST); Guernou

Djamila; Peters Sara; Corbett Lisa; Carr David; Smith Christina (ST); Ryder Nancy; Barretta Georgina; Myhill Jonathon; Canavan Debbie; Coupe John (ST); Patel Pinal; Howard Luke; Miles Andrew (ST)

Cc: Plowden Ben; Lock-wah-hoon Colette (ST)

Subject: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

This note provides a brief summary of the outcomes at BSM and any specific actions. It does not go into the detail of the papers presented and therefore will need to be read in conjunction with the agenda and individual papers. If anyone requires electronic access to papers, please let Jonathan Cush in the Bus Performance team know. Outstanding Items from previous meetings I missed the very start of the meeting therefore did not get any update from Simon Horsley on route 365 (reallocation of hesitation point at Orchard Village, Narrow Way and route 126 (Re-routeing to Ringers Road) – Simon – can you assist please? There was no update on the 128 and Queen’s Hospital. Route 473 / 573 – London City Airport I referred to the meeting attended by Stephen O’Connor and myself with the airport. I explained that whilst the possibility of using Hartmann Road within the airport site was being actively explored, a considerable amount of work may need to be undertaken to bring it to an acceptable state for the regular use by buses and therefore unlikely to be ready until late summer / autumn. In the meantime the priorities were relocating the hesitation point / driver changeovers for 573 to North Woolwich and reviewing the afternoon school movements. Lewisham Gateway No further update at this stage. Watching brief. Route 811 – Chelsea Flower Show shuttle from Victoria The meeting agreed the use of stop Z5 in Buckingham Palace Road subject to certain provisos. These have been subsequently discussed with Peter Nicholls. The service will be pro-actively monitored during the period of operation. Tendering issues No papers this week Major issues All papers approved / noted; specifics below

Tendering Programme - Tranche 446 (routes 57, 65, 71, 85, 213, 265, 281, 371, 418 and 681) Paper approved; comments on individual routes as follows:







Route 302 – Diversion to Queens Park Route test to check trees issues and stand arrangements at Queens Park in particular, together with firm costs required before consultation commences. Full public consultation is likely to commence late August and run until early / mid October. Borough very keen to be involved with the consultation process (and therefore we should involve them in the pre consultation phase). Hannah – can you allocate please? Route 599 – Purley, Old Lodge Lane Shuttle Service Shuttle service awarded to Abellio to replace Reedham Station – Old Lodge Lane section of the 455 service from 1st June for approximately 4 months due to roadworks. Given the sensitivities, it may be worth discussing with Stakeholders (especially the East Surrey Transport Committee), what they envisage in terms of publicity. Dennis – can you take this forward with David Bowker please? Route 634 - Retender Service now to be retained permanently and will therefore be retendered. Barking Riverside – revised proposals Proposals now just consist of an extension of the EL1 from Thames View Estate to Barking Riverside, with route 387 remaining largely as now. However opportunity will be taken to consult on withdrawal of Creekmouth peak journeys on the 387, as these are now little used. A separate paper to be presented at next BSM. Dennis Thomas is taking this consultation on. Route D7 – Frequency enhancement Given that there are frequency enhancements Monday to Friday peak and daytime, all evenings and Sundays suggest a simple on line stakeholder consultation (evenings and Sundays move from low to high frequency). Hannah – Can you allocate please? Minor Issues All papers approved; specifics below;. Route G1- Springfield Hospital Proposal that the G1 serves the stop at Springfield Hospital at all times approved (currently it only serves the hospital bus stop Monday to Friday daytimes; at other times it turns in a car park with no formal stop). Provisional date of 8th June; however Simon Thomas to check

that access to the hospital grounds WILL be available during operational hours of the G1 from that date. ALL SSTT’s will need to be adjusted as they currently have an anomaly note detailing the stopping arrangements at Springfield Hospital. No other publicity required, although the e-tile at the hospital stop may need adjusting. John Spencer / Peter Figg / Dennis Thomas – to note Bus Stop Changes All approved; no specific issues. Additional Papers None presented. London Service Permits All approved; specifics below:





Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Knight Hannah (ST)

Sent: 13 May 2013 13:51 To: Johnson Esther (ST)


Ps Gary has asked if I can stay at my desk tomorrow and not go the managers meeting just in case there’s any problem with the launch.

Therefore, are you OK to allocate? I’ve just seen I’ve received another one for allocation today if you can include too. Thanks From: Knight Hannah (ST)

Sent: 13 May 2013 13:47 To: Johnson Esther (ST)


Hi Esther Thanks for doing this All good here, a few more changes but we’re almost set. Just waiting on two more attachments then I think we’re there...but I’ve thought that at least once today so we’ll see. Hope your STIP meetings went well? Agnes called my mobile earlier to check that you weren’t off sick, bless her. Hannah From: Johnson Esther (ST)

Sent: 13 May 2013 13:36 To: Knight Hannah (ST)

Subject: FW: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

Hello I’ve added these two to the tracker for us to discuss at the management meeting tomorrow. Hope everything is OK over at Windsor House and you enjoyed your weekend. I’m back in the office for the rest of the afternoon now but have meetings from 4pm until 5.30pm. Esther From: Bradley Peter (ST)

Sent: 12 May 2013 23:19 To: Bradley Peter (ST); Mouncey Simon (ST); Birtill Oliver (ST); Farrow Nick (ST); Hall Chris (ST);

Hall Robert (Coaches); Johnson Esther (ST); Lacey Claire; Murphy Gary (ST); O'Connor Stephen (ST); Shirley Richard (ST); Van Der Nest Christian (ST); Figg Peter (ST); Howarth Peter (CORP);

Constantinou Mario (ST); Bowker David (Exc); Knight Hannah (ST); Jarman Matthew (ST); Tisdall

Stephanie; Horsley Simon (ST); Hayter Phil (ST); Maskell Dan; Agutter Robert; Edwards David (TfL

Press Office); Spencer John (ST); Kearns Steve (ST C&E ); Thomas Dennis (ST); Alleguen Claire;

Bamford Carla; Mann Colin; Howarth Peter (CORP); Kelly Elizabeth (ST); Mulholland Clare; Nicholls Peter (LTB); Blake Andree; Davies Carole (TfL); Foster Stuart (ST); Barrett Gilmore (ST); Guernou

Djamila; Peters Sara; Corbett Lisa; Carr David; Smith Christina (ST); Ryder Nancy; Barretta Georgina; Myhill Jonathon; Canavan Debbie; Coupe John (ST); Patel Pinal; Howard Luke; Miles Andrew (ST)

Cc: Plowden Ben; Lock-wah-hoon Colette (ST)


This note provides a brief summary of the outcomes at BSM and any specific actions. It does not go into the detail of the papers presented and therefore will need to be read in conjunction with the agenda and individual papers. If anyone requires electronic access to papers, please let Jonathan Cush in the Bus Performance team know. Outstanding Items from previous meetings I missed the very start of the meeting therefore did not get any update from Simon Horsley on route 365 (reallocation of hesitation point at Orchard Village, Narrow Way and route 126 (Re-routeing to Ringers Road) – Simon – can you assist please? There was no update on the 128 and Queen’s Hospital. Route 473 / 573 – London City Airport I referred to the meeting attended by Stephen O’Connor and myself with the airport. I explained that whilst the possibility of using Hartmann Road within the airport site was being actively explored, a considerable amount of work may need to be undertaken to bring it to an acceptable state for the regular use by buses and therefore unlikely to be ready until late summer / autumn. In the meantime the priorities were relocating the hesitation point / driver changeovers for 573 to North Woolwich and reviewing the afternoon school movements. Lewisham Gateway No further update at this stage. Watching brief. Route 811 – Chelsea Flower Show shuttle from Victoria The meeting agreed the use of stop Z5 in Buckingham Palace Road subject to certain provisos. These have been subsequently discussed with Peter Nicholls. The service will be pro-actively monitored during the period of operation. Tendering issues No papers this week Major issues All papers approved / noted; specifics below Tendering Programme - Tranche 446 (routes 57, 65, 71, 85, 213, 265, 281, 371, 418 and 681) Paper approved; comments on individual routes as follows:







Route 302 – Diversion to Queens Park Route test to check trees issues and stand arrangements at Queens Park in particular, together with firm costs required before consultation commences. Full public consultation is likely to commence late August and run until early / mid October. Borough very keen to be involved with the consultation process (and therefore we should involve them in the pre consultation phase). Hannah – can you allocate please? Route 599 – Purley, Old Lodge Lane Shuttle Service Shuttle service awarded to Abellio to replace Reedham Station – Old Lodge Lane section of the 455 service from 1st June for approximately 4 months due to roadworks. Given the sensitivities, it may be worth discussing with Stakeholders (especially the East Surrey Transport Committee), what they envisage in terms of publicity. Dennis – can you take this forward with David Bowker please? Route 634 - Retender Service now to be retained permanently and will therefore be retendered. Barking Riverside – revised proposals Proposals now just consist of an extension of the EL1 from Thames View Estate to Barking Riverside, with route 387 remaining largely as now. However opportunity will be taken to consult on withdrawal of Creekmouth peak journeys on the 387, as these are now little used. A separate paper to be presented at next BSM. Dennis Thomas is taking this consultation on. Route D7 – Frequency enhancement Given that there are frequency enhancements Monday to Friday peak and daytime, all evenings and Sundays suggest a simple on line stakeholder consultation (evenings and Sundays move from low to high frequency). Hannah – Can you allocate please? Minor Issues All papers approved; specifics below;. Route G1- Springfield Hospital Proposal that the G1 serves the stop at Springfield Hospital at all times approved (currently it only serves the hospital bus stop Monday to Friday daytimes; at other times it turns in a car park with no formal stop). Provisional date of 8th June; however Simon Thomas to check that access to the hospital grounds WILL be available during operational hours of the G1 from that date. ALL SSTT’s will need to be adjusted as they currently have an anomaly note detailing the stopping arrangements at Springfield Hospital. No other publicity required, although the e-tile at the hospital stop may need adjusting. John Spencer / Peter Figg / Dennis Thomas – to note Bus Stop Changes All approved; no specific issues. Additional Papers None presented. London Service Permits

All approved; specifics below:





Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Corbett Lisa



Cheers Chris. Was hoping you’d say 302 and yes From: Hall Chris (ST)

Sent: 13 May 2013 10:34 To: Corbett Lisa

Cc: Knight Hannah (ST) Subject: RE: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

Hi Lisa I’m more than happy for you to take on the 302 (more meaty that the D7) and I’ll provide you with all the support you need. Hannah, could you note this please and allocate to Lisa Cheers Chris From: Corbett Lisa Sent: 13 May 2013 10:02

To: Hall Chris (ST) Subject: FW: BSM 399 - Feedback from meeting on 8 May 2013

Chris, Is there any scope for me to take up either of the bus consultations from this paper? Either the 302 or D7? Or is it taking on too much? The P5 really hasn’t got much more input from me, and its only the Stratford one that probably really only needs my attention. Can we have a quick chat tomorrow before you go to the team meeting? Cheers Lisa From: Bradley Peter (ST)

Sent: 12 May 2013 23:19

To: Bradley Peter (ST); Mouncey Simon (ST); Birtill Oliver (ST); Farrow Nick (ST); Hall Chris (ST); Hall Robert (Coaches); Johnson Esther (ST); Lacey Claire; Murphy Gary (ST); O'Connor Stephen (ST);

Shirley Richard (ST); Van Der Nest Christian (ST); Figg Peter (ST); Howarth Peter (CORP); Constantinou Mario (ST); Bowker David (Exc); Knight Hannah (ST); Jarman Matthew (ST); Tisdall

Stephanie; Horsley Simon (ST); Hayter Phil (ST); Maskell Dan; Agutter Robert; Edwards David (TfL Press Office); Spencer John (ST); Kearns Steve (ST C&E ); Thomas Dennis (ST); Alleguen Claire;

Bamford Carla; Mann Colin; Howarth Peter (CORP); Kelly Elizabeth (ST); Mulholland Clare; Nicholls

Peter (LTB); Blake Andree; Davies Carole (TfL); Foster Stuart (ST); Barrett Gilmore (ST); Guernou Djamila; Peters Sara; Corbett Lisa; Carr David; Smith Christina (ST); Ryder Nancy; Barretta Georgina;

Myhill Jonathon; Canavan Debbie; Coupe John (ST); Patel Pinal; Howard Luke; Miles Andrew (ST) Cc: Plowden Ben; Lock-wah-hoon Colette (ST)


This note provides a brief summary of the outcomes at BSM and any specific actions. It does not go into the detail of the papers presented and therefore will need to be read in conjunction with the agenda and individual papers. If anyone requires electronic access to papers, please let Jonathan Cush in the Bus Performance team know. Outstanding Items from previous meetings I missed the very start of the meeting therefore did not get any update from Simon Horsley on route 365 (reallocation of hesitation point at Orchard Village, Narrow Way and route 126 (Re-routeing to Ringers Road) – Simon – can you assist please? There was no update on the 128 and Queen’s Hospital. Route 473 / 573 – London City Airport I referred to the meeting attended by Stephen O’Connor and myself with the airport. I explained that whilst the possibility of using Hartmann Road within the airport site was being actively explored, a considerable amount of work may need to be undertaken to bring it to an acceptable state for the regular use by buses and therefore unlikely to be ready until late summer / autumn. In the meantime the priorities were relocating the hesitation point / driver changeovers for 573 to North Woolwich and reviewing the afternoon school movements. Lewisham Gateway No further update at this stage. Watching brief. Route 811 – Chelsea Flower Show shuttle from Victoria The meeting agreed the use of stop Z5 in Buckingham Palace Road subject to certain provisos. These have been subsequently discussed with Peter Nicholls. The service will be pro-actively monitored during the period of operation. Tendering issues No papers this week Major issues All papers approved / noted; specifics below Tendering Programme - Tranche 446 (routes 57, 65, 71, 85, 213, 265, 281, 371, 418 and 681) Paper approved; comments on individual routes as follows:







Route 302 – Diversion to Queens Park

Route test to check trees issues and stand arrangements at Queens Park in particular, together with firm costs required before consultation commences. Full public consultation is likely to commence late August and run until early / mid October. Borough very keen to be involved with the consultation process (and therefore we should involve them in the pre consultation phase). Hannah – can you allocate please? Route 599 – Purley, Old Lodge Lane Shuttle Service Shuttle service awarded to Abellio to replace Reedham Station – Old Lodge Lane section of the 455 service from 1st June for approximately 4 months due to roadworks. Given the sensitivities, it may be worth discussing with Stakeholders (especially the East Surrey Transport Committee), what they envisage in terms of publicity. Dennis – can you take this forward with David Bowker please? Route 634 - Retender Service now to be retained permanently and will therefore be retendered. Barking Riverside – revised proposals Proposals now just consist of an extension of the EL1 from Thames View Estate to Barking Riverside, with route 387 remaining largely as now. However opportunity will be taken to consult on withdrawal of Creekmouth peak journeys on the 387, as these are now little used. A separate paper to be presented at next BSM. Dennis Thomas is taking this consultation on. Route D7 – Frequency enhancement Given that there are frequency enhancements Monday to Friday peak and daytime, all evenings and Sundays suggest a simple on line stakeholder consultation (evenings and Sundays move from low to high frequency). Hannah – Can you allocate please? Minor Issues All papers approved; specifics below;. Route G1- Springfield Hospital Proposal that the G1 serves the stop at Springfield Hospital at all times approved (currently it only serves the hospital bus stop Monday to Friday daytimes; at other times it turns in a car park with no formal stop). Provisional date of 8th June; however Simon Thomas to check that access to the hospital grounds WILL be available during operational hours of the G1 from that date. ALL SSTT’s will need to be adjusted as they currently have an anomaly note detailing the stopping arrangements at Springfield Hospital. No other publicity required, although the e-tile at the hospital stop may need adjusting. John Spencer / Peter Figg / Dennis Thomas – to note Bus Stop Changes All approved; no specific issues. Additional Papers None presented. London Service Permits All approved; specifics below:


Historic Bus Running Days in Greater London Paper noted

Health and Safety No issues. Any Other Business Nothing raised. Thanks Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Grant James

Sent: 25 July 2013 08:25 To: Bradley Peter (ST); Corbett Lisa

Cc: Hall Chris (ST) Subject: RE: Bus route 302

Thanks Peter and yes, will do Hope you have a good break James James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

M:

From: Bradley Peter (ST) Sent: 25 July 2013 00:33

To: Grant James; Corbett Lisa


James Many thanks. I am happy to be the point of contact, but am now on leave until 12th August. Would you mind just letting them know and that I will be in contact on my return? Many thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Grant James

Sent: 23 July 2013 08:40

To: Bradley Peter (ST); Corbett Lisa Cc: Hall Chris (ST)


Thanks Peter Essentially I’m looking for someone in Surface to pick this up and be point of contact. There’s no accessibility angle to it and the residents’ association has come to me because I’ve previously dealt with them about step-free access at Queen’s Park.

Who is the best person to handle this? James James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

M: E: From: Bradley Peter (ST)

Sent: 19 July 2013 16:34

To: Grant James; Corbett Lisa Cc: Hall Chris (ST)


James The route test throw up a number of issues which are currently being worked though. As a result the proposed rerouteing of the 302 is very much work in progress and there is no definitive plan. If the group have any views that they would like to express we would pleased to receive them. However we would be in a much better position to meet them once we have some further clarity on the scheme. Hope this helps. Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Grant James

Sent: 19 July 2013 16:27 To: Grant James; Corbett Lisa


Hi Lisa Can you let me know your thoughts. Thanks James

From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 15 July 2013 09:57 To: Bradley Peter (ST)


Hello Peter, No sorry, I was going to speak to you about it and then it slipped my mind. Tom Edwards has sent a mini update today, but it doesn’t really help. Did you want me to make contact with James again? Lisa From: Bradley Peter (ST) Sent: 12 July 2013 15:34

To: Corbett Lisa Cc: Hall Chris (ST)


Lisa Did you respond to this? Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Grant James




Hi Lisa I think for now they just want a contact in Surface that they can find out the current position from and probably write to outlining their thoughts. Can I put them in touch with you? Thanks

James James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

E: From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 08 July 2013 09:53 To: Grant James



Good morning James, I’m afraid that there is still no news to give. Peter Bradley has been chasing Performance for the minutes from the route test. From talking with Peter last week, I think there maybe some pre-consultation discussions but not sure when or who they will be with just yet. Kind regards Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London



From: Grant James



Hi Lisa Any news on this? Thanks James

I’ve been dealing with Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association about step-free access to Queen’s Park station. They’ve now contacted me about changes to the 302 bus route, which is not in my area of work. Essentially Peter is looking for a bit more information about our plans and ideally a meeting to discuss. They have also heard that the Kensal Rise association has a meeting with John Barry and would like one too. Would you mind picking this up? Many thanks James James Grant | Stakeholder Engagement Manager NOTE NEW NUMBER: M: E: From: Peter Hay [mailto:




(10am-2pm)


Sent: 06 July 2013 02:42 To: Bradley Peter (ST)

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: Re: Bus route 302

Peter They're awaiting my return. John

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 12 July 2013 17:31 To: Bradley Peter (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Corbett Lisa; Hall Chris (ST); Revel Virginie

Cc: Barry John (ST)


Peter, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. We are still finalising the minutes and considering next steps. Will keep you informed. Thanks Tom From: Bradley Peter (ST)

Sent: 05 July 2013 09:51

To: Blitz Bob (ST); Edwards Tom; Corbett Lisa; Hall Chris (ST); Revel Virginie Cc: Barry John (ST)


All Any news on the minutes yet please? Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:


To: Bradley Peter (ST)

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST); Edwards Tom

Subject: Re: Bus route 302

Peter for your further info: Tom is also reviewing sd operation, to enable us to make a decision on the contents of the consultation. I envisage that we would wish to launch the consultation in early to mid September. John On 30 Jun 2013, at 20:15, "Barry John (ST)" < @TfL.gov.uk> wrote:

Peter Tom is reviewing them with Peter and Virginie. John

On 30 Jun 2013, at 15:43, "Bradley Peter (ST)" @TfL.gov.uk> wrote:

All Any news on the minutes please? Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery

Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London Providing inspiration, strategic leadership and challenge to ensure the delivery of Surface

Transport outcomes Mail: Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ

Phone:

Email:

Mobile:


To: Bradley Peter (ST) Cc: Blitz Bob (ST); Edwards Tom; Corbett Lisa; Hall Chris (ST); Revel Virginie

Subject: RE: Bus route 302 Peter Thanks. I understand the minutes are coming out today. John From: Bradley Peter (ST) Sent: 27 June 2013 16:14

To: Barry John (ST) Cc: Blitz Bob (ST); Edwards Tom; Corbett Lisa; Hall Chris (ST)


John I spoke with Lisa this morning, who was on the route test. From what I understand there are significant issues with the trees which are mature Plains and potentially would cost significant sums of money to prune. Some are located by traffic islands which would not allow a double deck vehicle to pass unless the tree is pruned or the traffic island relocated. I also understand that the provision of a stand at Queens Park presents a number of challenges. I understand that the Brent representative on the route test agreed that there were significant challenges. Given this, I believe we need to continue the “pre-consultation” discussions with Brent to understand how we are proposing to resolve these issues before we can commence on any formal process. In the meantime I and my team are happy to assist with any pre consultation meetings either with the borough and / or local resident groups. It would be helpful to see the formal notes of the meeting so that a more formal position can be established. Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery

Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London Providing inspiration, strategic leadership and challenge to ensure the delivery of Surface

Transport outcomes Mail: Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ

Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Edwards Tom Sent: 27 June 2013 11:50

To: Corbett Lisa

Cc: Barry John (ST); Bradley Peter (ST); Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: RE: Bus route 302 Lisa, We are awaiting the route test minutes, which Virginie is working on today. Once we get those I think it would be beneficial to get the ball rolling with the consultation, which will also give Queens Park Residents’ Association a forum for making their views known. Thanks Tom From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 26 June 2013 14:54

To: Corbett Lisa

Cc: Edwards Tom; Bradley Peter (ST); Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: RE: Bus route 302

Lisa It would be better to do the consultation! Is the drafting of that with you? Thanks John From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 26 June 2013 14:50 To: Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST)

Subject: FW: Bus route 302 Tom/John, Just so you are aware I’ve had the following from James Grant in Stakeholder Engagement. Can you keep me posted with any updates following the route test earlier this week? John – Its seems the Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association are keen to meet with you too. Thanks Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London


Mail: Palestra 11G8, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ Phone: Email: <image001.jpg> From: Grant James


Subject: FW: Bus route 302 Hi Lisa Esther said you would be the best contact for this. I’ve been dealing with Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association about step-free access to Queen’s Park station. They’ve now contacted me about changes to the 302 bus route, which is not in my area of work.

Essentially Peter is looking for a bit more information about our plans and ideally a meeting to discuss. They have also heard that the Kensal Rise association has a meeting with John Barry and would like one too. Would you mind picking this up? Many thanks James James Grant | Stakeholder Engagement Manager NOTE NEW NUMBER: M: E: From: Peter Hay [mailto: ] Sent: 25 June 2013 23:23

To: Grant James Subject: Bus route 302 Dear James Grant, Thank you for the brief phone conversation earlier today. Just to confirm that Queens Area Park Residents Association (QPARA) would like to meet representatives of TfL to discuss the current ideas about re-routing Bus 302 to run via Salusbury Road to Queens Park station. You kindly said you would make some enquiries of TfL Surface Transport as to the current position regarding this route, and would come back to me. Peter Hay Transport Group QPARA

(10am-2pm)

From: Edwards David (TfL Press Office)


Subject: RE: Buses

Hello John Yes that fine and I have supplied to the newspaper. Thanks for your help David David B Edwards MCIPR | Press Officer | London Buses, Coaches and London River Services Tel: | Auto: | Mob: | Fax: |

From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 20 May 2013 18:07

To: Edwards David (TfL Press Office) Cc: Blitz Bob (ST)

Subject: RE: Buses

David Sorry, couldn’t get back earlier. Can I suggest the changes below. There’s a complication in that Chamberlayne Road goes north and south of Kensal Rise Station and the person who’s raised the issue is principally concerned with the section to the north. If we wanted to deal with KR as a whole the user numbers would also have to change. I’d also rather say “considering” in respect of any potential changes, rather than “deciding”, as we would consult on any service changes. Thanks John ================================ John Barry, Head of Network Development for London Buses, said: “We have been discussing this with residents. “Four bus routes use Chamberlayne Road north of Kensal Rise, carrying nearly 17,500 passengers a day on this section and showing clearly a demand for the service. These bus routes represent only around eight per cent of the traffic at peak times. “We keep the network under regular review and are considering how best to respond to the concerns.”

From: Edwards David (TfL Press Office)


Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: RE: Buses

John I have prepared the enclosed, are you happy with this ? John Barry, Head of Network Planning, said: “We are aware of the concerns raised by residents of Chamberlayne Road in Kendal Rise and are currently in detailed discussions with them. Four bus routes use this stretch of road carrying nearly 17,500 passengers a day showing clearly a demand for the service. Whilst local residents feel buses account for the large proportion of the traffic in reality they only represent eight per cent of traffic at peak times. “We are now deciding how to respond to the concerns, taking into account the need to balance the wishes of local residents with the demand for bus services in the area Regards David David B Edwards MCIPR | Press Officer | London Buses, Coaches and London River Services Tel: | Auto: | Mob: Fax: |

From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 20 May 2013 16:03

To: Edwards David (TfL Press Office) Cc: Blitz Bob (ST)

Subject: RE: Buses

David We’ve had detailed discussions with the residents who’ve raised concerns about the level of bus service along Chamberlayne Road in Kensal Rise. The principal bus services concerned are:

Route 6, a trunk service between Willesden and Aldwych with links to Queens Park, Edgware Road, Oxford Street and the Willesden Centre for Health and Care. Approximately 21,000 passengers per day use the route, of which 4400 (21%) are passengers to, from or through Chamberlayne Road.

Route 52, a trunk service between Willesden and Victoria with links to Ladbroke Grove, Kensington and Knightsbridge. There are 25,600

passengers per day in total and 28% (about 7200 per day) are passengers to, from or through Chamberlayne Road.

Route 187, an orbital service using single-deck buses between Central Middlesex Hospital and Finchley Road via Harlesden and Warwick Avenue. Approximately 8700 passengers per day, with 32% (about 2800 per day) across the Chamberlayne Road section.

Route 302, a suburban link from Mill Hill to Kensal Rise via Burnt Oak, Neasden and Willesden. Approximately 15,600 passengers per day use it in total of which about 19% (3000 per day) use it to, from or through the Chamberlayne Road section.

Buses make up only around 8% of the peak hour traffic passing along this section of Chamberlayne Road.

The bus network is kept under regular review and changes are made regularly, based on detailed knowledge of current usage and passengers’ priorities. We are considering how best to respond to the concerns expressed, taking account of the need to balance suggestions for reduced services on this particular section of road with the requirements of all those using our services. We do not accept the characterisation of these services as “ghost buses”. John

PS - The other services making up the total of seven quoted below are routes 28 and 452, which do not go north of Kensal Rise Station, and route 316 which passes near to, but not through, Kensal Rise. From: Edwards David (TfL Press Office) Sent: 20 May 2013 14:02

To: Barry John (ST)


Thanks John I do need to go back to them by the end of the day, Regards David David B Edwards MCIPR | Press Officer | London Buses, Coaches and London River Services Tel: | Auto: | Mob: | Fax: |


Sent: 20 May 2013 13:59

To: Edwards David (TfL Press Office)


David Yes, we’ve had detailed correspondence with Fiona Mulaisho of Kensal Rise on this topic. I’ll send you the most recent, as background. John From: Edwards David (TfL Press Office) Sent: 17 May 2013 12:30

To: Barry John (ST)

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: FW: Buses

Importance: High

Hello John We have received the enclosed enquiry from a local newspaper regarding local residents concerns about the number of buses using Chamberlayne Road. I was wondering if you were aware of their concerns and if we had any plans to address these. Any help would be appreciated. Regards David David B Edwards MCIPR | Press Officer | London Buses, Coaches and London River Services Tel: | Auto: | Mob | Fax: |

From: Walters, Max [mailto: ]

Sent: 17 May 2013 12:24 To: Edwards David (TfL Press Office)

Subject: Buses

Hi David, Residents in Kensal Rise (Kensal Rise Residents Association) have contacted me concerned about the volume of buses in Kensal Rise specifically Chamberlayne Rd. They say there are 12,821 buses passing down the mile long rd every week. They have encouraged TfL to think about reducing the number of services (Including the 302) or altering their routes to ease traffic and make life easier for residents who complain about the impact on their properties They are concerned that; There are too many bus routes (7) which use what is quite a narrow stretch of rd. Many of the bus are ghost buses which they claim is a waste of valuable bus resources and taxpayers’ monies.

Bus users cannot travel freely or in good time due to the congestion caused by too many buses on one road They also claim TfL makes payments to the bus operators for each mile they cover, and regardless of whether the bus is travelling more or less empty and that TfL does not understand that it is setting bus services for operators in Kensal Rise where there is little demand; but yet the operator continues to be paid in the form of mileage payments and mileage bonuses. Please could we have a statement from TfL on whether the situation is going to be reviewed and what TfL could do to address concerns or possibly reduce/reassign routes? If you could get back to me asap but no later than 11am on Monday it would be great. Thanks, Max Max Walters Reporter - Brent and Kilburn Times Direct line: email: k

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 08 May 2013 17:44 To: Brown Janet (ST)

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST); Fallon Duncan Subject: RE: Feedback from BSM 399 - 8 May 2013

Hi Janet, As a heads up, BSM asked for a test of the proposed 302 rerouteing to Queen’s Park prior to the consultation taking place. Paper of the proposals attached for info. Bob advises that informal only required at this stage, although we’d want to invite the borough ( @brent.gov.uk and @brent.gov.uk) as they have been involved in putting this proposal together. Thanks Tom From: Blitz Bob (ST)

Sent: 08 May 2013 17:21 To: +NetworkDevelopment; +Specifications Team (London Buses); Driscoll Cary; Singh Harcharan

(ST); Battersby James

Cc: Moffat Alex (ST); Thomas Simon (ST); Tuck Richard; McQuillan Eric; Bradley Peter (ST) Subject: Feedback from BSM 399 - 8 May 2013

Feedback from today’s BSM. Agenda and Papers

All papers approved. Comments: Tranche 446 Route 71 – further survey to be carried out in September 2013 to check on crowding at peaks – Action ND (Tom E) Route 154 – re-check late journeys – still awaiting costs from operator from option in Tranche 428 for additional late journeys and 24 hr operation – Action CT Route 281 – adequacy of Rugby service (281R) structure to be reviewed; in particular frequency of legs during split service; use iBus. Action ND (Tom E) / PI (Alex M). 281R also to be formally specified – action Specs. Also bus arrangements at regular sporting and other events around London should be reviewed Action ND (tbc). Route 681 – to be awarded in future as a separate contract from 281. Action Specs / CT Route 371 – full double decking of route to be tested – Action ND (Tom E)

Route 402 – Keypoints to be checked for both routes 402 and 418 – Action ND (Tom E) Route 302 Route test required before consultation in particular to check trees issues. Consultation to be carried out from mid August until September. Costs to be obtained now, so mini-spec required – route to be specified to stand in Claremont Road. Action ND (Tom E) / PT / Specs / CT Barking Riverside Add withdrawal of the 387 Creekmouth journey to consultation on EL1 extension. A BSM paper to next meeting to approve this is required. Action ND (Daniel R) / CD Route D7 Check BNCR of Saturday frequency increase to 9 bph. Action ND (Stephen W) Route G1 Date of gate opening to be checked with Hospital management and to be put on SISG. Action PT(Matthew P) / ND (Lisa L) Regards Bob



Subject: Re: Kensal Rise buses

Thanks, that's useful. John From: Edwards Tom Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 06:22 PM


Subject: FW: Kensal Rise buses

John, The resident complaint we were discussing, which Jim has just sent to me in its entirety. Thought I should make you aware of it before tomorrow. A considered and well presented argument in my opinion! Thanks Tom From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 11 June 2013 18:07

To: Edwards Tom Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Blitz Bob (ST); Conway Tony (ST); Fazekas, Sandor; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Bharj,

Gurdev Subject: Kensal Rise buses

Thanks Tom You may as well read the (welcome) message from the resident (who works for Lambeth Council) to Glenda Jackson MP and her three ward councillors:- Dear Councillors/Member of Parliament I am a resident of Kensal Rise on Hanover Road. I am concerned with regard to publicity currently given to Kensal Rise Residents Association who seem to be calling for a re-route or scrapping of the 302 bus route along Chamberlayne Road. Kensal Rise incorporates both Brondesbury ward and Queens Park ward but the suggestion for the 302 impacts directly on the Brondesbury ward. They refer to ‘ghost buses’ running along this route/road and the recent article in the Kilburn Times had a picture of a train of buses along Chamberlayne Road. I use the buses on this road every day in my commute to work and I know the problems there have been with buses stuck and backed up – usually because of road works or some form of temporary traffic control in place further down the Rise or even Harrow Road/Ladbroke Grove. Usually exacerbated by the huge number of single occupancy cars that use this road as a through route. (Now that is something that could be addressed)

I am concerned that momentum toward a scrapping of the 302 through Kensal Rise could be gathering when in fact KRRA only speak for those who attend their meetings – something I have not yet had the opportunity to do but will be availing myself of for the next meeting. To remove the 302 from Kensal Rise would leave anyone wanting to travel beyond Willesden with no option but to change in Willesden – this is simply not acceptable. We have the 6 and 52 routes both terminating in Willesden and to take away our only other option would leave those of us who rely on buses rather than cars in a dire situation. For those with children or difficulties walking it would be disastrous. Those in favour of scrapping the 302 quote statistics of number of passengers along this section of the route and compare it with those on the 52. This is of course not a like for like analysis - this section of the 302 route represents the beginning and end of the route. As I have stated to them in my online replies what kind of service would it be to those further along the route if it left Kensal Rise full each time? Of course it will be emptier as it nears the end of it’s route – have you seen more than 3 passengers exit a 36 bus as it terminates at Queens Park? I haven’t but I have seen upwards of 20+ people getting off a 302 at Kensal Rise in the morning. That said there are many times when the 302 does indeed fill up at Kensal Rise – come along of an evening to see for yourselves. We are told Chamberlayne Road is a single carriageway and cannot facilitate so many bus routes. I would counter by pointing out that the section of Chamberlayne Road north of Kensal Rise is the widest part of the road and can easily facilitate these buses. I would suggest this section of Chamberlayne Road can accommodate the 302 better than Sidmouth Road and Salisbury Road; this representing the alternative route to be proposed. On exiting Staverton Road the bus will turn left and then right onto Salisbury Road with a termination point at Queens Park. The road south of Kensal Rise station is a different matter and the road is quite narrow and busy. Hence my suggestion that if they want to look at any routes to be removed they should look at:

the 452 which overlaps with the 52 for more than ¾’s of it’s journey into central London.

the 28 which was extended into Kensal Rise in recent years and crosses the 52/452 at Notting Hill Gate.

I am confused why they have chosen the 302 as a target when the other 2 routes beginning and ending in the Rise seem much more problematic – unless of course they do not go past their houses. I cannot help but feel that what is going on here is analogous to moving to Hillingdon and then complaining about aircraft noise – knowing you don’t have to use said aircraft as your private jet sits in a hangar nearby. The 302 is a great link to the Overground station at Kensal Rise for those further north, thus providing access to this great orbital rail route. Brent have centralised all their services at the ‘civic centre’ in Wembley and this is the only route from Kensal Rise that goes anywhere near there. For those of us in the south of the borough access to this ‘civic centre’ is already problematic yet Brent have moved all their services there. I therefore want to ensure that you are aware of this issue and that you recognise that for many constituents, who have no access to private transport, these links are so important.

Should there be any suggestion that services be changed I would expect every attempt be made to consult with a wide cross section of residents. Many of those reliant on these bus routes are the people unlikely to get out to a residents meeting and often have no voice in the community. Their silence should not make them invisible, it should make us realise we need to work harder to reach them. Many thanks for your time.

I have replied to this resident and the councillor who forwarded it to me. I do not think you can add anything at this stage; I have pointed out that the joint-consultation will take place shortly, subject to the route test being successful. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk From: Edwards Tom [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]



Gurdev Subject: RE: Kensal Rise buses

Thanks for this Jim. If you could pass me details of the proposed traffic management scheme for Chamberlayne Road that would be appreciated. Obviously I’m happy for Tony to provide our comments, but we would want to ensure there are no planning implications. Also, could you pass me details of the concern raised by the resident to the 302 scheme? Thanks Tom From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk]



Gurdev


Tom Thanks for your message. I think this has been hacked around from the original press release written jointly by my colleague Adrian Pigott and our Comms. team:- "The council has established a good working relationship with the Kensal Rise Residents Association (KRRA) and we are currently working alongside them to develop new traffic management arrangements for the area. "We have made TfL aware of residents' concerns about the number of buses in the area but we have no direct influence over London Buses and the local bus network. London Buses have agreed to formally consult on changing route 302 from Kensal Rise to Queens Park which could result in few buses using Chamberlayne Road. However, this is a consultation and TfL will have to consider both residents’ and bus users' responses before reaching a decision. "It is important to remember that Chamberlayne Road is a classified "B road" which forms a vital link between the A4003 and the A404 and the whole of the road network serving the borough. "Brent Council is a robust proponent of sustainable transport, one of very few options for reducing private car generated traffic congestion and associated pollution across the borough. Large numbers of passengers using bus services such as the 302 need to connect from Willesden to the Overground North London line at Kensal Rise.

"Bus routes 187, 28, 452, 52 and 6 also serve Kensal Rise and offer important connections for large volumes of people who do not wish to or cannot afford to drive a car, but still need to travel in London. The council would not support any action which resulted in reducing any form of public transport provision that might inconvenience existing or future public transport users." To the best of my knowledge, Tony Conway has already given his comments on your behalf as a key stakeholder and objected to changes planned at the bus stop at Kensal Rise, which have therefore been dropped. I also believe that he is satisfied with the proposed 20 mph speed limit. I am happy though to provide you with further information if you need it? Interestingly, I have just received an email from a resident strongly objecting to the idea of rerouting 302 away from Kensal Rise. I shall of course reply that the consultation awaits the successful outcome of the route test and being a joint-consultation we (Brent) will not be sending a response. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council

Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk From: Edwards Tom [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]


Cc: Pigott, Adrian; Blitz Bob (ST); Conway Tony (ST) Subject: RE: Kensal Rise buses

Jim, Thanks for sending this through. The article states – a spokesman for Brent Council

said that although it has no direct control over bus arrangements, it is working alongside KRRA to develop new traffic management arrangements and has made TfL aware of the concerns. You mentioned to me verbally that a 20 mph speed limit was being considered on a section of Chamberlayne Road, and that Tony Conway was aware of this, but could you provide me with full details of the scheme? Assuming you will want our comments on the proposal as a key stakeholder? Thanks Tom From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 03 June 2013 14:50

To: Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST) Cc: Pigott, Adrian


Bob/Tom The article in the ‘Kilburn Times’ that I mentioned on the phone to Tom last week has now appeared on their website:_ http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/residents in kensal rise claim area is overrun with ghost buses 1 2218458 Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk


Sent: 02 May 2013 08:33 To: 'Nick Waterman'


Victoria Thanks for this. John From: Nick Waterman [mailto: @london.gov.uk]



John, Further to our chat earlier I’ve spoken to Isabel and agreed a redraft with her for a short cover response email from Isabel to Fiona. When this has been cleared it will be fine for you to send your longer response. The redraft is going up today so we should be able to confirm shortly when its gone. Nick: please can you send John a copy of the cleared response from Isabel when sent? Many thanks Victoria From: Kavanagh Clare (ST) [mailto @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 19 April 2013 13:22 To: Isabel Dedring

Cc: Victoria Hills; Nick Waterman; Anita Chen; Barry John (ST)


Isabel Understood. Quick summary of the background : Last year (May) we provided is a very detailed review of usage made by passengers of every route through the area, and given this, and other practical issues such as physically possible alternatives, what options are or aren’t practical for changing these services. Fiona responded in September and there was a further exchange of emails with her in December. From this we are developing a major proposal for public consultation; to re-route the 302. This will have winner and losers and needs (relatively minor) physical on-street changes, hence careful discussion with the council is needed. However, this would reduce the number of buses in the part of Kensal Rise Fiona is most concerned about. I think it fair to say that while she will welcome this – she will continue to be dis-satisfied, hence, for example, the reference to ‘ghost buses’ (empty buses) despite the evidence of passenger usage we have supplied to her. We do need to directly address these issues and update on the 302. Therefore, may I suggest the way forward might be for you to respond along the lines below and John will then send the attached note directly to her to continue our discussions.

Regards Clare ________________________________________ Dear Fiona Thank you for your email. I understand from Clare and John that they have been progressing a proposal for route 302 and were awaiting further discussions with the Council before contacting you again. However, I have asked then to update you this week, on this and the wider issues from John’s report and your response to it. As you will appreciate, changes like this do require consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and hence can take a bit of time. TfL will, of course, be happy to meet again with you and other residents as part of this process. Please feel free to contact me again if I can help further. Best regards Isabel


office

mobile

From: Isabel Dedring [mailto @london.gov.uk]

Sent: 19 April 2013 09:57 To: Kavanagh Clare (ST)

Cc: Hills, Victoria; Nick Waterman; Anita Chen; Barry John (ST) Subject: Re: Longstanding bus problems in Kensal Rise, London, NW10

Thanks Clare, but as the email came to me I need to respond to it myself. Happy to review a draft for me to send back. Victoria and Nick look after that process. Best regards From: Kavanagh Clare (ST) [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 06:11 PM

To: Isabel Dedring


Isabel We will respond to this tomorrow, with copy to you. Regards Clare


office

mobile


Sent: 04 June 2013 12:52 To: Irish Tamika (ST)

Subject: RE: Performance Operational Report - P2

Tamika Suggest

Following stakeholder requests and a review it is proposed to consult on the diversion of route 302 from Willesden Green Library to Queens Park Station, away from Chamberlayne Road in Kensal Rise and following a request from LB Wandsworth to move bus stops outside of Clapham Junction Station due to kerb space constraints, it is proposed that routes 344 serves stop C and the route 295 serves stop C instead of stop D. In order to mitigate the impact of roadworks in Regent Street and Haymarket in the next 18 months from late Summer 2013, it is proposed that route 15 is curtailed at Trafalgar Square. It is also proposed that the frequencies of routes 3, 23 and 94 are be reduced slightly to allow extra run time within existing resources. Other routes will also be examined for potential mitigations.

Hope that’s OK Thanks Bob From: Irish Tamika (ST) Sent: 04 June 2013 12:33

To: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: RE: Performance Operational Report - P2

Hi Bob Have a couple queries:

Following stakeholder requests and a review it is proposed to consult on the diversion of diverting route 302 from Willesden Green Library to Queens Park Station, away from Chamberlayne Road in Kensal Rise and following a request from LB Wandsworth to move bus stops outside of Clapham Junction Station due to kerb space constraints, it is proposed that routes 344 serves stop C and the route 295 serves stop C instead of stop D. Can you amend the highlighted bit In order to mitigate the impact of roadworks in Regent Street and Haymarket in the next 18 months from late Summer 2013, it is proposed that route 15 is curtailed at Trafalgar Square. The frequencies of routes 3, 23 and 94 reduced slightly to allow extra run time within existing resources. Other routes will also be

examined for potential mitigations. Have the frequencies been reduced or are they proposed to be reduced?

Please can you get back to me today. Thanks.

Regards

Tamika Irish

Communications Officer


Sent: 31 May 2013 14:39 To: Irish Tamika (ST)

Cc: Barry John (ST) Subject: RE: Performance Operational Report - P2

Tamika Period 2 report. Thanks Bob ============= ==

Strategic Report Route 498 was extended from Romford Station to terminate at Queen’s Hospital. The Monday to Saturday daytime frequency was increased from 2 to 3 buses per hour (bph) and the evening and Sunday frequencies increased from 1 to 2 bph. In addition the 499 was rerouted between Romford and Becontree Heath to run via Queens Hospital. A Sunday service running at 2 bph all day was introduced on route B12 (Erith – Joyden’s Wood), and schools route H1 ( Golders Green - Henrietta Barnett School) was restructured and re-numbered as 631 Network Development 1. Services in Tranches 446 and 448 were reviewed. To address crowding it is

proposed that frequencies are increased on route 65 during the weekday peaks from 8 to 9 buses per hour (bph) with the extra peak journeys withdrawn, and on routes 406 and 418 frequencies are increased from 2 to 3 bph on both routes daytimes Monday to Saturdays. On route 112 it proposed to increase Monday to Saturday daytime frequencies from 4 to 5 bph, Sunday from 3 to 4 and all evenings for 2 to 3 bph. On route 232 it proposed to increase Monday to Saturday daytime frequencies from 3 to 4 bph, with the extra peak journeys withdrawn.

2. A number of changes are proposed to relieve crowding:

route W7 - a new schedule to increase the peak frequency towards Finsbury Park in the AM peak from 18 / 19 to 20 bph and in the late PM peak from 12 bph to 15 bph,

route 18 - livening up some journeys to give a 6 minute headway east from Harlesden between 0620 and 0700,

route 245 - conversion of the complete service on to double deck, and

route D7 - increase the frequency of the D7 from 7.5 bph to 9 bph during weekdays and from 4 bph to 5 bph during all evenings and Sunday daytimes. It is also proposed to increase early Sunday morning frequencies to 4 bph.

3. Following a review of revised plans for the Barking Riverside Development it is

proposed to abandon the previously approved changes to routes EL1, EL2, 387 and the proposed EL3 and to instead extend route EL1 to the Rivergate Centre from Thames View. It is also proposed to withdraw the journeys on route 387 to Creeekmouth as they are little used..

4. In order to mitigate the impact of roadworks in Regent Street and Haymarket in

the next 18 months from late Summer 2013 it is proposed that route 15 is curtailed at Trafalgar Square. The frequencies of routes 3, 23 and 94 reduced slightly at allow extra run time within existing resources. Other routes will also be examined for potential mitigations. .

5. An additional schooldays only journey is proposed on each of the following:

route 152 in the AM peak towards New Malden,

route 377 in the afternoon towards Ponders End, and

route W6 in afternoon towards Edmonton Green.

6. As the number of trips on school route 634 continues to increase it is proposed to retain the route which was previously being considered for withdrawal.

7. The dates of the 178 and B16 changes at Kidbrooke were confirmed as 27 July

2013.

8. Following stakeholder requests and a review it is proposed to consult on the diversion. of diverting route 302 from Willesden Green Library to Queens Park Station, away from Chamberlayne Road in Kensal Rise and following a request from LB Wandsworth to move bus stops outside of Clapham Junction Station due to kerb space constraints, it is proposed that routes 344 serves stop C and the route 295 serves stop C instead of stop D.

9. In other work Network Development staff met with LB Havering officers to discuss

potential options to improve to services to Harold Wood Polyclinic and with LB Hackney and colleagues across TfL to finalise the service changes for the Narrow Way closure. Comments were also made on the final draft of the Barnet Enfield and Haringey Clinical Strategy Programme Transport Impact Assessment.

10. On bus policy work the Bus Speeds project board discussed phase 1 delivery

and user acceptance testing. The reports are now available for wider use (but with a limit on dates that can be analysed).. Phase 2 discussions are also well underway, with requirements scoping now complete. On Cashless buses an EQIA has been written, and the proposal has been submitted for Mayoral review. The next step is to develop a fully costed business case. Work has started preparing submissions for the London Assembly Transport Committee's investigation into bus services in London.

11. The specifications team are working on tranches – 445, 446, 447, 448 and 449,

and minispecs have been issued for routes 634 and EL1.

12. The Woolwich/Peckham BODS survey is underway and continues until 26th June. The keypoints surveys have been continuing to plan. Ad-hoc loadings surveys continue to be carried out, mainly relating to schools traffic

13. There were two reported Heath and Safety incidents:

On 30 April 2013 a BODS agency surveyor lost their balance, hit a hand rail and fell to the floor after a bus driver stopped to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Following the incident the surveyor was off for one day.

On 17 May 2013 a BODS agency surveyor fell due to a bus breaking sharply and fell on two passengers but resumed their duties upon recovering

Surveyors have been reminded to remain seated as much as possible.

14. On staff issues Traffic Surveyor, Loredana Salvato has been offered a 15 month

secondment with TfL Rail From: Irish Tamika (ST)

Sent: 24 May 2013 12:20 To: Blitz Bob (ST); Moffat Alex (ST); Chaffer Martyn (ST); O'Kane Brian (ST); Thomas Simon (ST);

London Paul (ST); Salmon Keith (LBSL); Dawes Andy (LTBuses)

Subject: Performance Operational Report - P2

Dear all Please send your contributions to the Period 2 report to me according to the timescales below.

Timescale Contributor Report Subject

By 1700 on Fri 31 May

Bob Blitz Bus Service Development

Alex Moffat/Martyn Chaffer Performance Development

Brian O'Kane Contract Compliance

Simon Thomas Head of Contracting

Bob Blitz Network Development

Regards

Tamika Irish | Communications Officer Technical Service Group

10th Floor (10Y4/5), Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ Tel: Auto:

Paul London Ticket Technology

All (as applicable) Health & Safety Matters Staff Updates

By 1200 on Wed 5 June

Tamika Irish Technical Services Group

Keith Salmon / Andy Dawes

Perf. Dev. (Performance Information)

By 1700 on Thurs 6 June

Andy Dawes Bus Network KPIs


Sent: 13 November 2013 08:35 To: Edwards Tom

Subject: Re: Route 302

Tom Fine please send to Brent for their words to be inserted. Thanks John From: Edwards Tom

Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 04:48 PM



John, Sounds fine – I’ve made a couple of minor changes but up to you whether you include them in the final version. Thanks Tom From: Barry John (ST)


Cc: Blitz Bob (ST)

Subject: Route 302

Tom I’ve made it less formal, what do you think? Thanks John ========================================== Dear Fiona I said I would update you when there was more news about route 302. We have been discussing the highways aspects of the scheme with Brent Council as they would be responsible for consulting on and carrying out any roadworks which might be necessary to allow the diversion. For example, works would probably be needed to make sure that the double-deck buses did not collide with overhanging trees on Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road, and to enable buses to use the terminus at Queens Park safely. Unfortunately, having now discussed the matter in more detail with the council, it now looks as though the works would be rather complex and expensive, with the additional drawback of potential impacts on existing traffic management arrangements. We have therefore decided that we cannot proceed with the

consultation as planned. Instead we intend to work with the council on a study they will run of traffic issues in the area ......... Insert Brent’s information on the planned traffic study in Kensal Rise area. We will work closely with the council on this study, which will enable a wider view to be taken. I am sorry that this news will be disappointing and would be happy to meet to discuss in more detail. Regards John From: Edwards Tom Sent: 24 October 2013 16:13

To: Barry John (ST)

Subject:

John, Below is my proposed letter to Ms Mulaisho. For info, I believe Paul Chandler advised the Brent Public Transport Liaison Panel yesterday evening that the 302 consultation would not be going. This meeting is attended by various TfL representatives, borough officers and councillors, but no members of the public, so I doubt Ms Mulaisho will be aware of this yet. Dear Ms. Mulaisho, You may recall from our document Bus Services in Chamberlayne Road NW10, which you received in May 2012, that we concluded the following: The option of diverting route 302 via Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road may be possible and we will carry out a full review, starting after the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This will include detailed examination of the roads, including options for a terminus at Queen’s Park and consideration of the impact on passenger journeys. I am writing to inform you that we have decided, after close liaison with officers at The London Borough of Brent, that we are unable to reroute the 302 to Queen’s Park. The reason for this is because Brondesbury Park and Salisbury Road are unsuitable for double deck vehicles. We will not, therefore, be going ahead with a consultation on the matter. We continue to work closely with the Brent on all matters that concern buses within their authority area. As a result of our discussions with the council on this matter they have provided the following statement:

Brent statement We understand that the decision not to consult on diverting route 302 may be disappointing to you, but hope we have clearly explained the reason for this decision. As you can see from the above, Brent and TfL London Buses continue to proactively review the bus and road networks where appropriate. Regards John John Barry Head of Network Development TfL-London Buses

From: Edwards Tom



Daniel, Cheers for this. 29th July is fine. Tom From: Nichols Daniel Sent: 10 July 2013 10:37

To: Edwards Tom Subject: Route 302

Tom Richard has informed me that the route 302 will be available on Monday 29 July as one of the survey boxes is still in Ruislip. If it is required earlier, it could be shipped up to Halifax. Let me know either way. Daniel

From: Corbett Lisa



Thanks Virginie. Keep me posted From: Revel Virginie Sent: 17 June 2013 14:48

To: Corbett Lisa Subject: RE: Route 302

Lisa No worries, Bus Ops could not attend this Friday. I’m currently looking at 24th June and, as per your email, you will be free, which is good news. Hopefully this will be the date. Thanks Virginie From: Corbett Lisa



Hi Virginie. I’m really sorry but I don’t work Fridays unless I know at least a week in advance so I can sort out childcare and swap my day not working around. I am however free all next week (including Friday if I get advanced notice), and Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Lisa From: Revel Virginie Sent: 17 June 2013 14:29

To: Corbett Lisa Subject: RE: Route 302

Lisa It doesn’t look like Wednesday morning is going to work. How would Friday morning be for you? Thanks Virginie From: Corbett Lisa



Hi Virginie, Yes I did see it. I can make Wednesday but not until 0930 if we’re meeting at Queens Park in that general area. Lisa From: Revel Virginie



Hi Lisa You must have James Lawman’s email. I’m trying to (re) organise a last minute route test for Wednesday morning. Can you attend? I’m going to send a general email. Thanks Virginie From: Corbett Lisa



Hi Virginie, I’m working at home. You can contact me on or wait until I’m back in the office tomorrow? Lisa From: Revel Virginie


Subject: Route 302

Hi Lisa Are you in today? Thanks Virginie Virginie Revel Performance Support Manager - Transport for London - Surface Transport - Performance Palestra - zone 10R2 - 197 Blackfriars Road - London - SE1 8NJ Tel: ) Mobile Fax: Email Web: http://www.tfl.gov.uk


Sent: 13 June 2013 16:07 To: Martin Angela (ST)

Cc: McShane Rosa (ST); McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST); Edwards Tom Subject: RE: Route 302

Angela We don’t want a minispec yet. We don’t really want to do this so we will wait until the consultation is complete to decide. Thanks Bob From: Martin Angela (ST)

Sent: 13 June 2013 16:01 To: McShane Rosa (ST); McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST)


Just trying to be clear with what is required. This is what was proposed in the BSM paper: It is proposed to consult on a diversion of route 302 to Queen’s Park. Brent Council have been informed of the scheme’s outline and raised no significant issues at this stage. Consultation will allow the benefits and disbenefits of the scheme to be considered in the round, following which a further paper will be presented to the meeting recommending whether or not the scheme should be implemented.

Does this mean consultation needs to be done first? Or a mini is required for the consultation? Ange. From: McShane Rosa (ST) Sent: 13 June 2013 14:54

To: Martin Angela (ST); McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST)


Well the update from last CPM was setting a target start date of first Sat in Apr 14 and there was already a note to say CD were doing Consultation. The SPM 283 minutes just say that the paper was going to the next BSM, which it did. From: Martin Angela (ST) Sent: 13 June 2013 14:47

To: McShane Rosa (ST); McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302

I have a note that says minispec on hold from SPM. Chris Hall says their is political issues similar to the G1.

I’ll add it to the list and get it done. From: McShane Rosa (ST)

Sent: 13 June 2013 14:43 To: McQuillan Eric; Tuck Richard; McGhee Fergus (ST); Martin Angela (ST)

Subject: Route 302

This went to SPM 283 on 1st May and BSM 399 on 8th May.

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 13 November 2013 17:44 To: Barry John (ST)

Subject: RE: Route 302 email to Ms Mulaisho

Will do. From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 13 November 2013 17:44

To: Edwards Tom Subject: RE: Route 302 email to Ms Mulaisho

Press please, should be easy to get!

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 13 November 2013 17:44 To: 'Lawman, James'

Cc: 'Pigott, Adrian' Subject: RE: Route 302 email to Ms Mulaisho

Jim, One quick question – what does the petition say exactly? Would it be possible to forward a copy (no need to include all the signatures!). Thanks Tom

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 13 November 2013 17:42 To: Barry John (ST)


I’ve asked that question and will forward on to you when they respond. From: Barry John (ST) Sent: 13 November 2013 17:41

To: Edwards Tom


What does the petition say? From: Edwards Tom Sent: 13 November 2013 17:32

To: Barry John (ST) Subject: FW: Route 302 email to Ms Mulaisho

John, Response from Brent about the email to Fiona. They have changed our original text and not committed to traffic management study! Are we happy with this?

Thanks Tom From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]


Cc: Pigott, Adrian Subject: FW: Route 302 email to Ms Mulaisho

Tom Paul Chandler has amended your message to Ms. Mulaisho to take into account a petition, on which she has led, that has been submitted to the council; about which you may not have been aware, although I think it was mentioned art our meeting. The petition should be taken into account in your response, although it does not itself mention route 302 or any other bus issue. We hope you find this amended version acceptable, but obviously get back to us if you have any more queries. You can hold back the detail such as the trees and issues around the Queens Park terminus for further engagement with Ms. Mulaisho. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer Transport Planning and Policy team Transportation Service Brent Council Address: Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ Office:

Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk

From: Chandler, Paul

Sent: 13 November 2013 16:25

To: Lawman, James Cc: Pigott, Adrian


Changes as below: Dear Fiona

I said I would update you when there was more news about route 302. We have been discussing the highways aspects of the scheme with Brent Council as they

would be responsible for consulting on and carrying out any roadworks which might be necessary to allow the diversion. Having discussed the matter in more detail with Brent officers, we understand that the works would be complex and expensive to deliver and would not be funded by the Council. We have therefore decided that we cannot proceed with a consultation.

We understand that a petition has been received from Chamberlayne Rd residents requesting a traffic management plan for the area. This petition will be reported to Brent Council’s Highway Committee early in 2014. Subject to the outcomes of the committee’s decision we will assist in the study process, if members decide that a study is both appropriate and affordable. Regards

TfL??? From: Pigott, Adrian [mailto @brent.gov.uk] Sent: 13 November 2013 12:25

To: Edwards Tom

Cc: Lawman, James Subject: Re: Route 302 email to Ms Mulaisho

Many thanks Tom. Jim, please liaise with Paul Chandler on the proposed response. Adrian.

On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:14, "Edwards Tom" < @tfl.gov.uk> wrote:

Jim and Adrian, Following on from our productive meeting at the Civic Centre on 21st October, please see below for our proposed response to Ms. Mulaisho. As agreed, could you insert a paragraph or two about the proposed traffic study in Kensal Rise and we will then send this to her via email. Many thanks

Tom Edwards

Transport Planner | Transport for London | Performance Directorate 10th Floor, Zone R3, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ tel: | email

Dear Fiona

I said I would update you when there was more news about route 302. We have been discussing the highways aspects of the scheme with Brent Council as they would be responsible for consulting on and carrying out any roadworks which might be necessary to allow the diversion. For example, works would probably be needed to make sure that the double-deck buses did not collide with overhanging trees on Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road, and to enable buses to use the terminus at Queens Park safely. Unfortunately, having discussed the matter in more detail with the council, it now looks as though the works would be rather complex and expensive, with the additional drawback of potential impacts on existing traffic management arrangements. We have therefore decided that we cannot proceed with the consultation as planned. Instead we intend to work with the council on a study they will run of traffic issues in the area ......... Insert Brent’s information on the planned traffic study in Kensal Rise area. We will work closely with the council on this study, which will enable a wider view to be taken. I am sorry that this news will be disappointing and would be happy to meet to discuss in more detail. Regards


Sent: 20 August 2013 09:36 To: Bradley Peter (ST)

Cc: Hall Chris (ST); Corbett Lisa; Edwards Tom Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation

Peter Thanks – I’ve already made contact with Brent as I wanted to get it out quickly (see attached) – sorry for being too quick. Given Adrian has said he needs to liaise with his highway colleagues first on the implications I suggest Chris and Lisa hold off meeting with Brent, as my view is that they are not yet committed to necessary modifications. I’ll also get back to Adrian re-iterating that we would need agreement on modifications before consulting. Tom Edwards is leading on this from ND so it would be useful for them to talk to Tom first any way. Thanks Bob From: Bradley Peter (ST)

Sent: 20 August 2013 09:26 To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Hall Chris (ST); Corbett Lisa

Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation

Bob Thanks for sharing this. Before we start consultation I would wish to meet LB Brent to agree the scope of the consultation and how we would deal with highway modifications. I assume we have got an in principle agreement with Brent that they are prepared to proceed with these, depending of course on the consultation results. I would not wish to consult and find that Brent had no intention of proceeding with the modifications proposed. Chris Hall and Lisa Corbett will be leading on this project and I will now ask them to meet with Brent. Can this be incorporated into the email response please? Many thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone: )

Email:

Mobile:


Sent: 19 August 2013 15:51

To: Bradley Peter (ST) Subject: FW: Route 302 proposed consultation

Peter Do you have any comments on the draft email below? Thanks Bob From: Barry John (ST)

Sent: 19 August 2013 15:43

To: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: Re: Route 302 proposed consultation

Bob Worth consulting Peter B? John

On 19 Aug 2013, at 14:18, "Blitz Bob (ST)" @TfL.gov.uk> wrote:

Tom

Thanks – as discussed I’ll send it Adrian cc Jim and you & John. I’ll also call Adrian. Thanks From: Edwards Tom


Cc: Barry John (ST) Subject: Route 302 proposed consultation

Bob, Below is the text I propose we send to Adrian Pigott at Brent about the 302 consultation. Adrian, As you are aware, a route test was held recently to establish whether route 302 could be diverted to terminate at Queens Park. See attached for the minutes of this test. A summary of the key points –




As you will also be aware, it was agreed that a joint London Buses / LB Brent consultation would be conducted to establish public and stakeholder opinion about this scheme. With your agreement, we propose to go ahead with this consultation. The consultation would of course have to mention that the scheme is subject to the trimming of trees and the construction of kerb buildouts and traffic island repositioning.

From: Pigott, Adrian [mailto @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 03 September 2013 07:20 To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST); Chandler, Paul; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Fazekas, Sandor Subject: Re: Route 302 proposed consultation

Dear Bob, I am still awaiting a final response from our Lead Member for Transportation - difficult during the holiday season. However, first thoughts are that this ought to be a London Buses consultation relating specifically to service provision. The other issues should not come into it at this stage as this is a potential minefield for the local authority. Residents are split as to what they want to see happen. If a majority of residents support the proposal, the borough would then progress local consultation regarding traffic management changes, which could result in local protest due to loss of on-street parking (proposed build outs) and loss of trees. Contentious issues, to say the least. I will get back to you this week. Thanks, Adrian. On 29 Aug 2013, at 12:56, "Blitz Bob (ST)" < tfl.gov.uk> wrote:

Adrian

Could you please let me know where you’ve got to on this – a response by the end of the day would be appreciated. Thanks

Bob

From: Pigott, Adrian [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]


Cc: Lawman, James; Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST)

Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation Dear Bob, Thanks for your email. There are obviously many implications for us to consider here as Highways Authority, hence I will liaise with some key colleagues and respond to you in due course. Many thanks, Adrian. Adrian Pigott.

Team Leader - Transport Planning. office: mobile: Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ

http://www.brent.gov.uk From: Blitz Bob (ST) [mailto @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 19 August 2013 17:58



Adrian, As you are aware, a route test was held in June to establish whether route 302 could be diverted to terminate at Queens Park. See attached for the minutes of this test. The key points are:




As you will also be aware, it was agreed that a joint London Buses / LB Brent consultation would be conducted to establish public and stakeholder opinion about this scheme. With your agreement, we propose to go ahead with this consultation. The consultation would of course have to mention that the scheme is subject to the trimming of trees and the construction of kerb buildouts and traffic island repositioning. Happy to discuss further. Regards

Bob

Robert Blitz Network Planning Manager | TfL London Buses 10th Floor Zone 10R4, Palestra | 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ Tel: | Mobile: | Auto: Email: | Web: www.tfl.gov.uk

From: Conway Tony (ST)

Sent: 17 June 2013 14:32 To: Edwards Tom; Revel Virginie; Stanton Ian (ST); Riome Rob (ST)

Cc: Brown Janet (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302 route test

Hi Virgine I am fully booked on the 19 and do not have any one that I can send in my place Regards Tony From: Edwards Tom Sent: 17 June 2013 11:59

To: Revel Virginie; Conway Tony (ST); Stanton Ian (ST); Riome Rob (ST) Cc: Brown Janet (ST)


Hi Virgine, Unfortunately there’s nobody who can come in my place. I can do the afternoon of he 19th (from about 1300) if that helps? Thanks Tom From: Revel Virginie Sent: 17 June 2013 11:55

To: Edwards Tom; Conway Tony (ST); Stanton Ian (ST); Riome Rob (ST)

Cc: Brown Janet (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302 route test

Dear all Following on James Lawman’s email, I’ve been asked to look into arranging the route test for June 19th. Since this date was one of the two originally suggested and you had already replied you were unavailable, can you let me know if you can send someone in your place? Rob- is this date still fine for you? Thanks for letting me know asap. Virginie From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 17 June 2013 11:10 To: Revel Virginie; Edwards Tom; Conway Tony (ST); Gowers John (ST); Corbett Lisa

Cc: Brown Janet (ST); Jowsey, David; Pigott, Adrian; Nere, Solomon; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Fazekas, Sandor

Subject: Route 302 route test

Virginie

This seems to be dragging on and it is unfortunate that we cannot complete the route test before 3rd July, when the Kensal rise complainants (who seem to represent only a small number of residents) are meeting the Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, our lead member, Cllr Jim Moher, a colleague and me about the issue. I think a major obstacle to re-routing will be finding a suitable terminus at Queen’s Park station. Sending a second route round Claremont Road, where the 36 turns and stands is going to prove politically difficult, although I am sure we will look at this option. There are plans to change the road configuration nearby, removing the gyratory, about which Tony Conway should already have been consulted. Finally the two representatives from Brent will probably be my colleague Solomon Nere and me, so please copy Solomon into all subsequent emails. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk From: Revel Virginie [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 17 June 2013 10:36

To: Edwards Tom; Lawman, James; Jowsey, David; Conway Tony (ST); Gowers John (ST); Corbett

Lisa Cc: Brown Janet (ST)


Dear all Further to my previous email, I am writing to let you know that the route test needs to be postponed until July. I will contact you shortly to discuss new dates. Many thanks Virginie From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 04 June 2013 14:16

To: Revel Virginie Subject: RE: Route 302 route test

I can only do the 20th. Can you invite Lisa Corbett from consultation too please? Thanks

Tom From: Revel Virginie

Sent: 04 June 2013 14:02 To: Edwards Tom; 'Lawman, James'; '[email protected]'; Conway Tony (ST); Gowers John

(ST) Cc: Brown Janet (ST)


Dear all Due to complaints received from residents in Kensal Rise about the number of buses traversing Chamberlayne Road in LB Brent and following review of services in the area, London Buses are proposing to re-route route 302 from Willesden Green Library to Queen’s Park Station via Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road. A route test is required to assess whether the section of Brondesbury Park currently not served by buses can be safely traversed and whether any of the mature trees lining Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road would need trimming. We are proposing to carry out the test on 19th or 20th June at 10.30 am. Could all invitees let me know by Friday 4pm their availability on the dates proposed? Many thanks Virginie Revel Performance Support Manager - Transport for London - Surface Transport - Performance Palestra - zone 10R2 - 197 Blackfriars Road - London - SE1 8NJ Tel: Mobile Fax Email: Web: http://www.tfl.gov.uk


Sent: 28 June 2013 12:23 To: Reucroft Peter (ST)

Cc: Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302 test

Peter Thanks. Tom is looking at the minutes and will get back. John From: Reucroft Peter (ST) Sent: 28 June 2013 12:12

To: Barry John (ST) Cc: Edwards Tom

Subject: FW: Route 302 test

John For your info, my response to the borough officer. Thanks Peter From: Reucroft Peter (ST) Sent: 28 June 2013 12:09

To: 'Lawman, James'; Revel Virginie Cc: Edwards Tom; Brown Janet (ST); 'Pigott, Adrian'; Conway Tony (ST)

Subject: RE: Route 302 test

Jim The way forward is still being reviewed internally before a decision is made on what the next steps on this are. I am sorry that I am unable to give you a timescale on this either. Thanks Peter Peter Reucroft Performance Account Manager, London Buses. Palestra 10th Floor, 10Y1, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ.

(internal

From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 28 June 2013 11:34

To: Revel Virginie Cc: Edwards Tom; Reucroft Peter (ST); Brown Janet (ST); Pigott, Adrian; Conway Tony (ST)

Subject: Route 302 test

Virginie I am receiving enquiries like this and would therefore appreciate the outcome of Monday’s route test as soon as possible?

I thought re-routing 302 to Queen’s Park station presented so many difficulties that we need not even proceed to a formal consultation; but that is my opinion bearing in mind too that this situation is caused by a small group of residents in the Kensal Rise area who are also now objecting to a traffic management scheme in Chamberlayne Road into whose design they have contributed! Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I will be based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ from 22 July. Telephone numbers and email addresses will remain unchanged.

From: Cummins, Cllr.Mark

Sent: 27 June 2013 18:45

To: Lawman, James Subject: Fwd: Query - bus route changes in Staverton Road?

Dear James Could you please give an update on this matter? Kind regards Mark

Mark Cummins Liberal Democrat Councillor for Brondesbury Park Ward London Borough of Brent

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 04 June 2013 11:00 To: Saleemi Faisel; McQuillan Eric

Subject: RE: Rt, 681

Hi Eric, Faisel advises there is some confusion as to whether routes 281 and 681 should be contracted together. My understanding was that they will not, as advised by BSM 399. See attached email of Bob’s notes from that BSM. Thanks Tom From: Saleemi Faisel Sent: 04 June 2013 10:55

To: Edwards Tom Subject: RE: Rt, 681

It was actually CT (Eric) who advised they should be contracted together. I needed confirmation from yourself before we could change the specs. Could you speak to Eric please and let me know if how we should proceed?

Thanks

Kind Regards,

Faisel Saleemi

Direct Dial: 1 | Internal

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: Edwards Tom Sent: 04 June 2013 10:53

To: Saleemi Faisel

Subject: RE: Rt, 681

I think BSM recommended that they were tendered separately from this contract onwards. Best to double check this with Contracts. From: Saleemi Faisel

Sent: 04 June 2013 10:51

To: Edwards Tom Subject: Rt, 681

Hi Tom, I understand that Rt. 281 & Rt 681 will be contracted together. Can you please confirm this?

Thanks

Kind Regards,

Faisel Saleemi

Direct Dial | Internal

From: Bradley Peter (ST)


Subject: RE: SPM this morning

Chris Thanks for the update. Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Hall Chris (ST) Sent: 01 May 2013 15:46

To: Bradley Peter (ST); Knight Hannah (ST) Subject: SPM

Hi Peter I raised the points you gave me, the answers given are as follows:

N65 – will be referred to as such in the tranche paper, but a discussion will be had at BSM

The late journeys on route 154 are not being progressed at this time

Route 281 – the solution is offered in the last line of para 63, essentially as the route is being retendered, contracts/specs will ensure that enough resource to maintain a reliable schedule during rugby matches is offered as part of the bids

The short term solution for the 481 depends on tendering, if the incumbent operator gets the route then the new schedule will be brought in early

Route G1 changes at the hospital will come in, in July. Plenty of time for us to engage Route 343 – we will aim for an August introduction ELT – This scheme has now changed entirely. Essentially all it will be now is an extension of the EL1 to Galleons Drive. Route 387 will remain as it is for the next few years whilst further development comes on stream. It allows TfL a better chance of getting the infrastructure that they were promised and will concentrate the review around the opening of the new Secondary School in 2015 Route 302 rerouteing – this should go to BSM next week so will need to be allocated.

Route D7 – I said that we won’t be consulting on the frequency increase. Any other questions let me know Cheers Chris Hall | Consultation Specialist | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London


Mail: Palestra 11G9, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ Phone: ) Email: Mobile: From: Bradley Peter (ST)


Cc: O'Connor Stephen (ST) Subject: SPM this morning

Chris A few issues with the papers submitted to SPM this morning. Can you raise them please? Tranche 446 65 – does not address the issue if the night service should remain 65 or be called N65, which has been raised by stakeholders 213 – can you ask Bob where we are with later journey on the 154 from Croydon to Sutton please (as part mitigation for the loss of the N213)? 281 – para 63 – RBK mention the curtailments on the 281 at Surbiton Station especially during rugby at Twickenham; however no solution is offered (which in my mind should be that the rugby schedule needs to be more robust); 418 – given that the new contract does not commence until July 2014, what is the short term solution to the capacity issues on the service? 343 – we need a date for implementation much sooner than 7th September 2013; ideally something needs to be done next month (ie June); G1 – fine, has been asked for so June date is achievable from an engagement viewpoint; Barking Riverside – The paper does not actually say that we are not proceeding with the EL3 (which is what I have concluded from reading it). Paper needs to be explicit on this issue. Suggest we also consult on removing the Creekmouth journeys on the 387 from September, given they are used by less than one person a journey; will make any future consultations easier to present and although it does not save any resources, does give buses equal amounts of recovery time at Barking Reach.

Lewisham Gateway – no mention of proposal to reduce Saturday frequency of route 261 from 6 to 5 bph in line with Monday to Friday service (bringing this forward from new contract in December 2013) – should that be included? Thanks Peter Peter Bradley | Head of Consultation Delivery



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

Mobile:

From: Ayanka Jason (ST)


Cc: Brown Janet (ST); Conway Tony (ST); Nichols Daniel Subject: RE: Staff Facilities Working Group: Route 302 - Kensal Rise to Queens Park

Thanks Tom From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 26 June 2013 15:34 To: Ayanka Jason (ST)

Cc: Brown Janet (ST); Conway Tony (ST); Nichols Daniel Subject: RE: Staff Facilities Working Group: Route 302 - Kensal Rise to Queens Park

Hi Jason, We are planning to consult on this proposal over the summer. For a number of reasons this scheme is unlikely to go ahead (although please don’t share this externally for now), and if it ever became a firm scheme I would ensure that everyone was fully briefed on the details. Thanks Tom From: Ayanka Jason (ST)

Sent: 26 June 2013 15:30

To: Nichols Daniel Cc: Edwards Tom; Brown Janet (ST); Conway Tony (ST)

Subject: Staff Facilities Working Group: Route 302 - Kensal Rise to Queens Park

Daniel At yesterday’s Staff Facilities Working Group meeting, Metroline advised of plans to re-routed/extended route 302 from Kensal Rise to Queens Park. Are you able to advise if and when this change will be reviewed by BSM? Regards Jason

Jason Ayanka | Project Manager | Auto T | F | M

London Bus Services Limited | Bus Infrastructure (Development) 10G5 | Palestra | 197 Blackfriars Road | London SE1 8NJ

Transport for London | Surface Transport (Operations & Group Safety)

number of people who would be affected on the Willesden to Kensal section of the route, were route 302 to be diverted to Queens Park. You say “many” whilst we say a few and this seems to have been a sticking point in our correspondence / communication, and we are sure you will agree with this observation. In view of the above observation, it would be really helpful if you were to provide the actual values, not percentages, ratios or fractions, but the numbers of passengers using route 302 per day / week between Willesden and Kensal Rise. This would help us to all have a common reference point for discussions and certainly help us understand by what you mean when you say “many”. We would also like the same data for the following routes – 28 (Westbourne Park to Kensal Rise) and 452 (Notting Hill Gate to Kensal Rise) – as you say “diverting routes 28 or 452 would affect large numbers of passengers”. This video was taken during the rush hour when the buses should be busy, but as you can see nearly all the buses in the video are travelling more or less empty, which is a highly questionable use of valuable bus resources and taxpayers’ monies by TfL management. You may not know this but there have been 32 accidents including fatalities in the last 3 years on Chamberlayne Road. This 1-mile road accounts for nearly 2% of all accidents occurring in Brent, which is no surprise given the level of traffic on this road and the fact that there is no room for cyclists. In the video notice how cyclists are forced to cycle in the middle of the road, as they are squeezed off the side nearest to the pavements by buses. Can you say TfL practices on Chamberlayne Road fit in with the Mayor’s cycling vision for London? Emergency vehicles use Chamberlayne Road and there have been many occasions when ambulances have been forced to come to a standstill due to the impenetrable levels of congestion caused by the extraordinary number buses. In the video you will see that the road is lined by residential properties. In the same way that consideration on the introduction is given to other areas, why was this never applied to Kensal Rise such that today there are 7 routes operating on a very narrow single carriageway, which cuts through our residential area? Include route 98 and this makes it 8 routes. After you have watched this video we hope you will be in a position to accept that there is an endemic failure with TfL’s bus policy area in the Kensal Rise, resulting in gross mismanagement of valuable bus resources and tax payers’ monies. The consequence of TfL’s disastrous bus practices has been the destruction and cannibalization of once quiet residential areas such as Kensal Rise. We hope you will now see why route 302 should be cut back from Kensal Rise as contrary to what you say this bus does not transport “many” passengers to and from Kensal Rise. We also hope that you will understand why cutting route 302 away from Kensal Rise is just a small step as the same scrutiny needs to be applied to routes 452 and 28 which travel to and from Kensal Rise for miles more or less empty. This is a serious misuse of valuable bus resources and taxpayers’ monies and the negative impact that this bus practice has had on Kensal Rise residents must not be underestimated. We look forward to hearing from you and receiving the data we have requested. Regards, Fiona and Hazel

From: Pigott, Adrian [mailto: @brent.gov.uk] Sent: 20 August 2013 09:20

To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Lawman, James; Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation

Dear Bob, Thanks for your email. There are obviously many implications for us to consider here as Highways Authority, hence I will liaise with some key colleagues and respond to you in due course. Many thanks, Adrian. Adrian Pigott. Team Leader - Transport Planning. office: mobile:

Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ


From: Blitz Bob (ST) [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 19 August 2013 17:58 To: Pigott, Adrian

Cc: Lawman, James; Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST) Subject: Route 302 proposed consultation





From: Peter Hay [mailto

Sent: 09 September 2013 14:54 To: Bradley Peter (ST)

Cc: Grant James; brent.gov.uk Subject: Route 302 - Queens Park area

Dear Peter Bradley I am following up my email of 5th August below. While I understand there is still some uncertainty about plans for route 302, I would be most grateful if you could respond before close of play this Thursday 12th September as we have an Association meeting at 8pm that evening. In particular, it would be helpful if you could progress arrangements for the meeting QPARA requested. Peter Hay -----Original Message----- From: Peter Hay < > To: peter.bradley < @tfl.gov.uk> CC: jamesgrant @tfl.gov.uk> Sent: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:51 Subject: Route 302 - Queens Park area

Dear Peter Bradley Queens Park Area Residents Association (QPARA) represents the interests of residents in the Queens Park area broadly lying between Chamberlayne Road and Salusbury Road NW6 (details at www.qpark.org.uk). We have a membership of over 400 and a long history since1974 of constructive involvement in a wide range of issues of interest to this substantial conservation area. Among these issues we have welcomed improvements to local bus services in recent years. Perhaps inevitably there are environmental consequences for residents living near routes as the number of buses has increased. The issue of congestion in Chamberlayne Road connected with the number of bus routes buses has been raised with TfL by neighbouring residents' groups, and QPARA strongly supports efforts to address the problems. This road being the western boundary of our area, we too are in active dialogue with our members nearby about their concerns. We are aware that one idea which has gained momentum in TfL is to re-route bus 302 from Kensal Rise and instead to run it via Salusbury Road to terminate at Queens Park station. In advance of any consultation our members expressed firm views about this at our monthly meeting in July. They feel that a 'solution' such as this which simply transfers the problem from one side of the Queens Park area to the other is not really a solution. To amplify, Salusbury Road is busy all day especially at extended peak hours when long tail-backs of traffic occur in both directions. The existing route 206 along Salusbury both suffers from this and contributes to it, partly because the only feasible place for main bus stops is at the busiest southern section of the road. Buses are often held up there by congestion, and in turn when stopping for passengers frequently bring traffic to a halt. This part of Salusbury is a gateway to our conservation area and has significant character which QPARA is very keen to maintain, including the concentration of quality retail and restaurant / café premises. These already stretch the current parking and loading facilities and they would certainly resist any attempt to reduce these relating to new routes. Generally, the introduction of another route could be a tipping point towards much more serious congestion, and overall the situation is not offset by any significant benefit from the 302 as the 206 already provides access to and from the Willesden area and north. In addition to this apparent duplication, our members are concerned that further buses could increase the risk of accidents as pedestrians try to weave across congested Salusbury Road. There may well also be issues about the future viability of the potential terminus if this is around Premier Corner / Claremont Road. Brent Council has planning permission for substantial redevelopment of the site by the station including removing Premier Corner / the one way circulatory

system. This could start within the next two to three years and an additional bus terminating there was not factored into Brent's detailed planning assessments. A rival claim by HS2 for the site complicates matters as they too would probably close Premier Corner, in this instance temporarily but for a longish period. QPARA wishes to be fully involved in the discussions about route 302 and asks to meet TfL representatives as soon as possible (see email correspondence below). We would be most grateful if you would kindly arrange this as some time has already passed since our original request. If you would reply to he will respond on return from leave on Tuesday 20 August. Our letter is copied to local ward Councillors and Councillor Jim Moher, Chair of Brent's Highways Committee, and to relevant Council Officers. Peter Hay, Robin Sharp, Jamie Hope Transport Group, QPARA. (139 Victoria Road NW6 6TE). -----Original Message----- From: Grant James < [email protected]> To: 'Peter Hay' < Sent: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 9:03 Subject: RE: Bus route 302

Dear Peter Sorry for the lengthy delay getting back to you. You best point of contact for this is Peter Bradley, our Head of Consultation Delivery in Surface Transport. Peter is away until 12 August, but if you want to send in any representation on behalf of QPARA he will be in touch on his return. As I understand it the proposed rerouteing of the 302 is very much a work in progress and there is no definitive plan, so I can’t update on that front. However, if you have views you would like to express, or questions about where we are in the process, Peter will be pleased to help. You can contact him by email at @tfl.gov.uk or telephone . I suggest email is the best way as Peter does not have a huge amount of time at his desk! Best regards

James

James Grant | Senior Communications Manager

M: E:

From: Peter Hay [mailto Sent: 25 June 2013 23:23

To: Grant James Subject: Bus route 302 Dear James Grant, Thankyou for the brief phone conversation earlier today. Just to confirm that Queens Area Park Residents Association (QPARA) would like to meet representatives of TfL to discuss the current ideas about re-routing Bus 302 to run via Salusbury Road to Queens Park station. You kindly said you would make some enquiries of TfL Surface Transport as to the current position regarding this route, and would come back to me. Peter Hay Transport Group QPARA

(10am-2pm)

From: Isaac Cyrilene (ST)

Sent: 11 September 2013 14:56 To: Bradley Peter (ST)

Cc: Hall Chris (ST) Subject: Route 302

Hi Peter Peter Hay from the Queens Park Residence Association called today @ 14:30 (

He advised that he has emailed you twice, but no response to date. Extended apologies etc... He has concerns about the possible re-routing of 302. He is aware that it is currently a “set of ideas”, but would appreciate being kept in the loop. He is requesting information prior to a residence (20:00) meeting tomorrow. He appreciate that you are very busy at present and requested the contact name of person dealing with route 302. Spoke to Chris who said that he be happy to give him a call back tomorrow – (if you don’t), although there is not much to discuss/inform etc... Kind regards Cyrilene Isaac| Delivery Support| Business Operations



Transport outcomes


Phone:

Email:

From: Nichols Daniel


Subject: Route 302

Tom Richard has informed me that the route 302 will be available on Monday 29 July as one of the survey boxes is still in Ruislip. If it is required earlier, it could be shipped up to Halifax. Let me know either way. Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Lawman, James [mailto brent.gov.uk] Sent: 01 July 2013 12:22 To: Barry John (ST) Cc: McGhee Fergus (ST); Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST); Pigott, Adrian Subject: Route 302 Thanks John I will look up Bob's paper from a year ago. Ye, I was on the 302 route test last week, but I have to say that there I thought that there were so many complications (finding a terminal point at Queen's Park, overhanging trees, congestion in Salusbury Road in the weekday peaks, likely residents' objections) that I am far from enthused about changing the present line of route. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I will be based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ from 22 July. Telephone numbers and email addresses will remain unchanged. -----Original Message-----

From: Barry John (ST) [mailto @tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 30 June 2013 14:01 To: Lawman, James Cc: McGhee Fergus (ST); Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST); Pigott, Adrian Subject: Route 302 Jim Unfortunately I'm away this week, back on 9th July. You might recall the briefing paper on Kensal Rise that Bob sent you about a year ago: that might give you material suitable for briefing the Leader? I met Fiona and Hazel Williams in KR a couple of weeks ago to discuss issues in general and the planned consultation on a diversion of route 302. Since then we've had the route test (I think you were there?) and currently we're reviewing that as part of planning for a consultation in the autumn. John On 29 Jun 2013, at 03:47, "Lawman, James" @brent.gov.uk> wrote: > Thanks John. > > On a separate note, I need to catch up with whoever of you is dealing with this complainant Ms. Fiona Mulaisho in Kensal Rise. The reason is that she and two of her colleagues are coming to see our council leader and lead member on July 10th to try to win his backing for their 'cause'. Paul Chandler and I will also be attending. > > I am in Palestra on Monday afternoon 1st July for a borough officers' workshop on contactless payment on buses, if that is convenient for you. > > > Regards > > Jim Lawman > Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation > Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council > > Office: > Work mobile: > > www.brent.gov.uk > > I will be based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ from 22 July. > > Telephone numbers and email addresses will remain unchanged. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry John (ST) [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk] > Sent: 28 June 2013 09:40 > To: Lawman, James

> Cc: McGhee Fergus (ST); Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST); Pigott, Adrian > Subject: RE: Route 206 and St. Raphael's > > Jim > Thanks for this. The 224 change is being monitored in the usual way. You could possibly send Cllr Long a copy of the St Raphael's review we sent you last year to demonstrate the depth of review which has taken place. > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lawman, James [mailto brent.gov.uk] > Sent: 26 June 2013 16:03 > To: Barry John (ST) > Cc: McGhee Fergus (ST); Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST); Pigott, Adrian > Subject: Route 206 and St. Raphael's > > John > > Thanks for your message. > > On the first point, I only told Cllr Long that I had referred it to you at TfL/London Buses. I assume you are reviewing the change to route 224 (detouring it via Tesco) as a matter of course? > > I have not had any communication or complaints from the residents or their councillors about route 224 or asking for 206 back (i.e. to once again run into the estate), other than verbal contact when I have met a couple of them in the street or the library in Wembley. > > > Regards > > Jim Lawman > Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation > Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council > > Office: > Work mobile: > > www.brent.gov.uk > > I will be based at the new Brent Civic Centre from 22 July. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry John (ST) [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk] > Sent: 26 June 2013 15:28 > To: Lawman, James > Cc: McGhee Fergus (ST); Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST); Pigott, Adrian > Subject: RE: Route 206 and St. Raphael's > > Jim > > I agree that Cllr Long's second point is covered by the our work with you re development in Wembley and there's no reason that schools in the same area can't be covered by that. >

> How have you gone back to Cllr Long on the first point? > > Thanks > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk] > Sent: 24 June 2013 19:18 > To: Barry John (ST) > Cc: McGhee Fergus (ST); Edwards Tom; Blitz Bob (ST); Pigott, Adrian > Subject: Route 206 and St. Raphael's > > John > > I am not sure that you wish to revisit the issue of St. Raphael's, which has gone quiet since route 224 inward into the estate was diverted via Tesco Brent Park? I have met a couple of the residents and I believe that many were never fully mollified by this change, although they accepted that it was an improvement. > > Separately I have informed the councillor that route 206 is part of the Wembley Bus Strategy, in which Tom is involved; but there is an issue with secondary schools along the route expanding, in particular the ARK Academy next to Wembley Park station. > > > Regards > > Jim Lawman > Public Transport Liaison Officer - Transport Planning Transportation > Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council > > Office: > Work mobile: > > www.brent.gov.uk > > I will be based at the new Brent Civic Centre from 22 July. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Long, Cllr. Janice > Sent: 22 June 2013 15:42 > To: Lawman, James > Subject: PTLM 206 Review > > Jim > Was there meant to be a review of how St Raphaels were managing > following the removal of the 206 from their estate? And isn`t a > review necessary given the increased use of this route with more to > come with the opening of the Civic Centre > > Cllr Janice Long

> Harlesden Ward LB Brent > >

> > Sent from my iPad

From: Corbett Lisa

Sent: 27 June 2013 15:21 To: Thomas Dennis (ST)

Subject: Route 302

Dennis, As just discussed find attached the BSM paper for the re-routeing of route 302 to Queens Park for initial map work. Thanks Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London



From: Mohamad Hassan


Subject: RE: TS.047.3004215 - A21 Farnborough Way, Green Street Green improved informal pedestrian facilities

Hi Hannah As this is my first scheme and I am not familiar with this process, I would be grateful if you could confirm that the below email below with the attachments is sufficient. Regards Hassan From: Mohamad Hassan


Cc: Fisher Andy (ST) Subject: TS.047.3004215 - A21 Farnborough Way, Green Street Green improved informal pedestrian

facilities

Hi Hannah

This scheme is ready to go to stakeholder and public engagement.

Objectives The proposals are designed to improve pedestrian and cycling accessibility and connectivity around the A21 Green Street Green roundabout and in particular to provide improved pedestrian and cycle links between A21 Farnborough Way and A21 Sevenoaks Way as well as the residential developments in Cudham Lane North and the centre of Green Street Green, without significant impact on general traffic movements. General Scope of proposals The proposals would see the introduction of a new wide uncontrolled pedestrian and cycle crossing facility across A21 Farnborough Way, improvements to the existing crossing facility across Cudham Lane North, and improved linking shared pedestrian and cycle routes. Key elements of the scheme are as follows:

Provide a new 2.5m wide uncontrolled pedestrian and cycle crossing facility

across A21 Farnborough Way north of the A21 Farnborough Way/ Green Street Green roundabout

Widen the footway on the eastern side of A21 Farnborough Way/ Sevenoaks Way and convert to shared use with cyclists. This will connect the existing cycling provisions to the north and south of the roundabout

Widen the refuge island in the Cudham Lane North junction to approx 5m. This will improve pedestrian and cycling accessibility and connectivity across the roundabout. The entry width of Cudham Lane North will consequently be reduced in width to 4.5m from the existing 7.2m

A de-cluttering exercise will be undertaken as part of the scheme to rationalise street furniture and remove redundant signage.

Please find attached a plan of the scheme. Kind regards Hassan

Hassan Mohamad Regional Planner (Bromley, Croydon & Sutton) Capital Development Team

Roads Directorate Safe reliable and cared for streets

Transport for London, 8th Floor Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ E: | T: | Int: M:

From: Corbett Lisa


Cc: Edwards Tom Subject: Route 302

Hello Virginie, I’ve just bumped into Tom and he mentioned that a route test for the re-routeing of route 302 has been set up. From a consultation perspective can you forward the invite to myself as I will be taking it on. Kind regards Lisa Lisa Corbett | Consultation Delivery Officer | Consultation Delivery Surface Planning | Surface Transport | Transport for London



From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 13 November 2013 12:12 To: 'Lawman, James'; 'Pigott, Adrian'

Subject: Route 302 email to Ms Mulaisho

Jim and Adrian, Following on from our productive meeting at the Civic Centre on 21st October, please see below for our proposed response to Ms. Mulaisho. As agreed, could you insert a paragraph or two about the proposed traffic study in Kensal Rise and we will then send this to her via email. Many thanks Tom Edwards Transport Planner | Transport for London | Performance Directorate

10th Floor, Zone R3, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ

tel: / in | email

Dear Fiona I said I would update you when there was more news about route 302. We have been discussing the highways aspects of the scheme with Brent Council as they would be responsible for consulting on and carrying out any roadworks which might be necessary to allow the diversion. For example, works would probably be needed to make sure that the double-deck buses did not collide with overhanging trees on Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road, and to enable buses to use the terminus at Queens Park safely. Unfortunately, having discussed the matter in more detail with the council, it now looks as though the works would be rather complex and expensive, with the additional drawback of potential impacts on existing traffic management arrangements. We have therefore decided that we cannot proceed with the consultation as planned. Instead we intend to work with the council on a study they will run of traffic issues in the area ......... Insert Brent’s information on the planned traffic study in Kensal Rise area. We will work closely with the council on this study, which will enable a wider view to be taken. I am sorry that this news will be disappointing and would be happy to meet to discuss in more detail. Regards

From: Edwards Tom


Cc: Barry John (ST) Subject: Route 302 proposed consultation

Bob, Below is the text I propose we send to Adrian Pigott at Brent about the 302 consultation. Adrian, As you are aware, a route test was held recently to establish whether route 302 could be diverted to terminate at Queens Park. See attached for the minutes of this test. A summary of the key points –




As you will also be aware, it was agreed that a joint London Buses / LB Brent consultation would be conducted to establish public and stakeholder opinion about this scheme. With your agreement, we propose to go ahead with this consultation. The consultation would of course have to mention that the scheme is subject to the trimming of trees and the construction of kerb buildouts and traffic island repositioning.

From: Lawman, James [mailto brent.gov.uk]


Cc: Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST); Pigott, Adrian Subject: Route 302 proposed consultation

Thanks Bob. Yes, we’ll get back to Tom. Meanwhile the complainants about 302 (i.e. Ms. Mulaisho and friends) requested to see the council leader to get backing for their cause. He and our lead member have decided that the latter should deal with it, but Cllr Moher has not yet indicated his preferred time to me when he is willing to see them. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer Transport Planning and Policy team Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I am now based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ. Telephone numbers and email addresses remain unchanged.

From: Blitz Bob (ST) [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 29 August 2013 17:50 To: Lawman, James

Cc: Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST); Pigott, Adrian Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation

Jim Thanks; we would need to address funding issues as we move forwards. I’m on leave myself next week so could Adrian please let Tom know the substantive answer on your views on going forwards with the consultation. Thanks Bob From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk]

Sent: 29 August 2013 14:42

To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST); Pigott, Adrian Subject: Route 302 proposed consultation

Bob Adrian is on leave until next Tuesday; but can you advise me who you expect to pay for the highway works described in the route test? There is no enthusiasm here for deploying officer time in our Highway Projects design team, even if we can claim the time back from TfL. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer Transport Planning and Policy team Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I am now based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ. Telephone numbers and email addresses remain unchanged. From: Blitz Bob (ST) [mailto: tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 29 August 2013 12:56


Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation

Adrian Could you please let me know where you’ve got to on this – a response by the end of the day would be appreciated. Thanks Bob From: Pigott, Adrian [mailto brent.gov.uk] Sent: 20 August 2013 09:20

To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Cc: Lawman, James; Edwards Tom; Barry John (ST) Subject: RE: Route 302 proposed consultation

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your email. There are obviously many implications for us to consider here as Highways Authority, hence I will liaise with some key colleagues and respond to you in due course. Many thanks, Adrian. Adrian Pigott. Team Leader - Transport Planning. office: mobile:

Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ


From: Blitz Bob (ST) [mailto @tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 19 August 2013 17:58







As you will also be aware, it was agreed that a joint London Buses / LB Brent consultation would be conducted to establish public and stakeholder opinion about this scheme. With your agreement, we propose to go ahead with this consultation. The consultation would of course have to mention that the scheme is subject to the trimming of trees and the construction of kerb buildouts and traffic island repositioning. Happy to discuss further.

-----Original Appointment-----

From: Revel Virginie Sent: 17 June 2013 17:45

To: Revel Virginie; Reucroft Peter (ST); Edwards Tom; Conway Tony (ST); Stanton Ian (ST); Riome Rob (ST); Corbett Lisa; 'Lawman, James'; ' @brent.gov.uk'; Andy Stroud (Metroline)


When: 24 June 2013 10:30-12:00 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London. Where: Kensal Rise station

When: 24 June 2013 10:30-12:00 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London. Where: Kensal Rise station Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dear all You are invited to attend the above route test. If you would like to attend, please see the agenda below.

Note: If you have a mobile telephone, please forward your number so that, in the event of any unforeseen circumstances, you can be contacted on the day. If you have any comments regarding the above, please contact me on the number below or on on the day. Kind regards Virginie Revel Performance Support Manager - Transport for London - Surface Transport - Performance Palestra - zone 10R2 - 197 Blackfriars Road - London - SE1 8NJ Tel: Mobile: Fax: Email: Web: http://www.tfl.gov.uk

From: Lawman, James [mailto: brent.gov.uk] Sent: 04 June 2013 14:56

To: Revel Virginie

Cc: Brown Janet (ST); Pigott, Adrian; Edwards Tom; Conway Tony (ST); Gowers John (ST); Jowsey, David; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Nere, Solomon


Virginie Either days are suitable for me; but the earlier one would probably be better, and supremely ironic, because the two ladies who are causing this situation by complaining about the number of buses on Chamberlayne Road are coming to meet the council leader, the Lead member for Transportation, the Head of Transportation and me in the afternoon at 14:30. Those two ladies, to remind you, are Ms. Fiona Mulaisho and Ms. Hazel Williams. Please include my colleague Solomon Nere, from the Highway Design team here, on the invitation as he can deal with any issues relating to stops and road layout. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk From: Revel Virginie [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 04 June 2013 14:02

To: Edwards Tom; Lawman, James; Jowsey, David; Conway Tony (ST); Gowers John (ST) Cc: Brown Janet (ST)


Dear all Due to complaints received from residents in Kensal Rise about the number of buses traversing Chamberlayne Road in LB Brent and following review of services in the area, London Buses are proposing to re-route route 302 from Willesden Green Library to Queen’s Park Station via Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road. A route test is required to assess whether the section of Brondesbury Park currently not served by buses can be safely traversed and whether any of the mature trees lining Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road would need trimming. We are proposing to carry out the test on 19th or 20th June at 10.30 am. Could all invitees let me know by Friday 4pm their availability on the dates proposed?

Many thanks Virginie Revel Performance Support Manager - Transport for London - Surface Transport - Performance Palestra - zone 10R2 - 197 Blackfriars Road - London - SE1 8NJ Tel: Mobile: Fax: Email: Web: http://www.tfl.gov.uk


From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 24 October 2013 16:13 To: Barry John (ST)

Subject:

John, Below is my proposed letter to Ms Mulaisho. For info, I believe Paul Chandler advised the Brent Public Transport Liaison Panel yesterday evening that the 302 consultation would not be going. This meeting is attended by various TfL representatives, borough officers and councillors, but no members of the public, so I doubt Ms Mulaisho will be aware of this yet. Dear Ms. Mulaisho, You may recall from our document Bus Services in Chamberlayne Road NW10, which you received in May 2012, that we concluded the following: The option of diverting route 302 via Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road may be possible and we will carry out a full review, starting after the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This will include detailed examination of the roads, including options for a terminus at Queen’s Park and consideration of the impact on passenger journeys. I am writing to inform you that we have decided, after close liaison with officers at The London Borough of Brent, that we are unable to reroute the 302 to Queen’s Park. The reason for this is because Brondesbury Park and Salisbury Road are unsuitable for double deck vehicles. We will not, therefore, be going ahead with a consultation on the matter. We continue to work closely with the Brent on all matters that concern buses within their authority area. As a result of our discussions with the council on this matter they have provided the following statement: Brent statement We understand that the decision not to consult on diverting route 302 may be disappointing to you, but hope we have clearly explained the reason for this decision. As you can see from the above, Brent and TfL London Buses continue to proactively review the bus and road networks where appropriate. Regards John John Barry Head of Network Development TfL-London Buses


Sent: 24 July 2013 15:35 To: Reucroft Peter (ST); Revel Virginie

Cc: Edwards Tom; Pigott, Adrian; Conway Tony (ST); Andy Stroud (Metroline); Corbett Lisa; Brown

Janet (ST) Subject: Route 302 route test minutes

Thanks Peter Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I am now based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ.

Telephone numbers and email addresses remain unchanged.

From: Reucroft Peter (ST) [mailto: tfl.gov.uk] Sent: 24 July 2013 09:22

To: Lawman, James; Revel Virginie

Cc: Edwards Tom; Pigott, Adrian; Conway Tony (ST); Andy Stroud (Metroline); Corbett Lisa; Brown Janet (ST)

Subject: RE: Route 302 route test minutes

Jim The purpose of the test was to see what was feasible and how much work is involved. A decision on the next steps has yet to be made. You will be kept informed of the next steps. Thanks Peter Peter Reucroft Performance Account Manager, London Buses. Palestra 10th Floor, 10Y1, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ.

From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk] Sent: 23 July 2013 16:59

To: Revel Virginie Cc: Reucroft Peter (ST); Edwards Tom; Pigott, Adrian; Conway Tony (ST); Andy Stroud (Metroline);

Corbett Lisa; Brown Janet (ST)

Subject: Route 302 route test minutes

Virginie The big question is does TfL wish to proceed with this proposal to divert route 302, given the constraints mentioned in the minutes? I trust TfL would be willing to pay for the road and tree works mentioned in the minutes, although I may be able to get one of our arboriculture officers to carry out an inspection for you. In addition I have empirical evidence form a councillor that there are objections to its removal from Chamberlayne Road (admittedly including his own, as he lives in a side-road and uses 302 regularly); and conversely from a residents’ group representative that there are objections in Salusbury Road. The southern (Queen’s Park station) end of Salusbury Road is quite congested in the morning and evening peaks, I am told, and that too raises questions about diverting the route to Queen’s Park. Regards

Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer – Transport Planning Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I will be based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ from 22 July. Telephone numbers and email addresses will remain unchanged.

From: Revel Virginie

Sent: 22 July 2013 12:50 To: Conway Tony (ST); Corbett Lisa; 'Lawman, James'; Andy Stroud (Metroline)

Cc: Reucroft Peter (ST); Edwards Tom

Subject: Route 302 route test minutes Importance: High

Dear all Please find attached the minutes of the route test which was carried out on 24 June. Apologies for the delay. If you have any questions, please let me know. Kind regards Virginie Virginie Revel Performance Support Manager - Transport for London - Surface Transport - Performance Palestra - zone 10Y1 - 197 Blackfriars Road - London - SE1 8NJ Tel: ) Mobile: Fax:

Email: Web: http://www.tfl.gov.uk

From: Edwards Tom

Sent: 04 July 2013 17:16 To: Barry John (ST)

Cc: Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: Route 302 route test minutes and analysis of conversion to DD

Hi John, See attached for the updated 302 route test minutes. Also, if the route was converted to 60 capacity SD vehicles, 11 buses would be required in the morning busiest hour and 9 in the afternoon. The cost of converting and increasing the peak frequency to 9bph (with 2 peak flow AM journeys) on M-F only is an estimated £310,703. The cost if we were also to increase frequency to 9 bph interpeak and on Sat, 6 bph on Sun and 6 bph on all evenings is estimated at a further £242,411 (total £553,114). For information, usage increase since double-decking in Feb 2010 is 14% M-F, 4% Sat and 9% Sun. Taking the figures above into account, I think converting back to SD is a non-starter. We would not be able to operate at anything less than 9bph in the peaks with the two

peak flow journeys in the morning, so the minimum cost is £310,703. We also wouldn’t be able to use a mix of single and double decks as this would require tree trimming / removal / kerb buildout on Brondesbury Park and Salusbury Road, and if these works were carried out we might as well just leave the route as fully double-deck. Your thoughts on the minutes and analysis of converting to SD? Thanks Tom

From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk] Sent: 10 October 2013 18:58

To: Edwards Tom

Cc: Barry John (ST); Pigott, Adrian; Fazekas, Sandor; Amirhosseini, Hossein; Blitz Bob (ST) Subject: Routes 206 and 305

Thanks Tom. I cannot prejudge the reply as we have not yet received the petition, which would then have to be considered by the Highways Committee as part of the due process. They are meeting tonight as it happens and the next meeting is I believe in January on their quarterly cycle. However, from last week’s meeting with Ms. Mulaisho and her colleague Rik Smith I think we can deduce that her (personal at least) ambition is to reduce the number of buses in Chamberlayne Road (she accepts that there will be some) and restrict other traffic, particularly heavy trucks, which she may be seeking to ban outright. Perhaps as a local resident you have a view yourself, but Chamberlayne Road never seems to me to be particularly heavily used by medium or heavy trucks other than those which have a reason to be there, such as delivering building materials or supplies to Tesco? I am minded to recommend to our lead member that our reply to her should await your response (did you say John is preparing something?). Meanwhile QPARA (Queen’s Park

Area Residents’ Association) are also meeting tonight and they are far from happy about the prospect of route 302 switching to Salusbury Road. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer Transport Planning and Policy team Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk

From: Roche Daniel Sent: 23 May 2013 10:13

To: McGhee Fergus (ST); Price Jamie; Dawes Andy (LTBuses); Hall Chris (ST); Bradley Peter (ST);

Shirley Richard (ST); Thomas Simon (ST); O'Connor Stephen (ST); Murphy Gary (ST); Birtill Oliver (ST); McQuillan Eric; Barry John (ST); Blitz Bob (ST); Daly Aidan (ST); McShane Rosa (ST); Walker

Stephen (ST); Gaitonde Swati (ST); Martin Angela (ST); McQuillan Jennifer (ST); Parkhouse Lucky (ST); Saleemi Faisel; Shah Nina; Adams Ben (ST); Barrett Laura; Brown Janet (ST); Butler Wayne

(ST); Chaffer Martyn (ST); Edwards Tom; Hackshaw Nicola (ST); Marcar George (ST); Moffat Alex (ST); Preston Matthew (ST); Preston Peter (ST); Reucroft Peter (ST); Simpson Louis (ST); Bunn

Karen (ST); Driscoll Cary; Morrison Alexander; Tuck Richard; Palmer Tara; Lacey Claire; Nichols

Daniel; Cush Jonathan; Harris Mike (172BPR); Corbett Lisa; Rapoz Simone; Binnian Henry; Chin Nathaniel; Labrousse Lisa (ST); Freeman Paula (ST); Battersby James; Aukett James (ST); Gemma

Joseph (TPH); Woodcock Clare; Wells Timothy Subject: SPM 283 and 284 - minutes

All, Please find attached the notes from the last two SPM’s. Apologies for the delay. Regards Daniel Roche | Senior Transport Planner | Network Development Team

Transport for London The Palestra Building 197 Blackfriars Road Southwark SE1 8NJ Tel: Ext:

From: Edwards Tom Sent: 26 July 2013 12:11

To: Blitz Bob (ST)

Subject: Staff work report

Hi Bob, For the staff work report – Working on finalising the Wembley Bus Strategy with Brent, and using this to feed into our own Wembley bus network future structure report. Chamberlayne Road stuff – proposal for route 302 to be diverted to Queens Park, and route test held. Consultation likely to follow. Thanks Tom

From: Lawman, James [mailto @brent.gov.uk] Sent: 18 October 2013 15:48

To: Edwards Tom Cc: Pigott, Adrian

Subject: Suggested agenda for 21st Oct officers meeting

Thanks Tom. I have just found Bob’s email from last year which will be useful. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer Transport Planning and Policy team Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile:

www.brent.gov.uk I am now based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ. Telephone numbers and email addresses remain unchanged.

From: Edwards Tom [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 18 October 2013 15:06 To: Lawman, James

Cc: Pigott, Adrian

Subject: RE: Suggested agenda for 21st Oct officers meeting

OK Jim, that’s fine. See you on Monday. Thanks Tom From: Lawman, James [mailto: @brent.gov.uk] Sent: 18 October 2013 10:36

To: Edwards Tom Cc: Pigott, Adrian


Thanks Tom. Adrian may not be able to join us now, as he has another meeting to go to; but I’ll get his comments from him today. If you prefer to stay on for a catch-up after the main meeting, that is fine by me. Regards Jim Lawman Public Transport Liaison Officer Transport Planning and Policy team Transportation Service Environment and Neighbourhood Services Brent Council Office: Work mobile: www.brent.gov.uk I am now based at the new Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ. Telephone numbers and email addresses remain unchanged.

From: Edwards Tom [mailto: @tfl.gov.uk]

Sent: 17 October 2013 16:59 To: Lawman, James


Hi Jim, See attached for the suggested agenda for our meeting on Monday. As I said before we want the main focus of the meeting to be about route 302 and wider issues at Chamberlayne Road. However, we’ll have to opportunity to discuss any other items you feel are appropriate under AOB, and if necessary you and I can sit down for a catch up after the main meeting. Many thanks Tom

Hi Lisa, Any comments or changes on this before I send it ...

Documents

Transcript of Hi Lisa, Any comments or changes on this before I send it ...