Agenda item

a)    Updates from TfL Actions arising from last meeting:

o   412 Bus - Report back to the Panel on future changes to the route once more data on this route had been collated.

o   130 Bus - Report back with progress toward an evidence based solution for the 130 bus route, concerning serving King Henry’s Drive from Vulcan Way.

o   468 bus – Report back the length that the route would be monitored.

Michelle Wildish/Muhammed Mashud (TfL)

b)    Bus services in the Town Centre

Michelle Wildish/Muhammed Mashud (TfL)

(Including a report, for the information of the Panel, of suggested bus route changes from the East Surrey Transport Committee)

c)    Thornton Heath bus garage – (Update)

Michelle Wildish/Muhammed Mashud (TfL)

d)    Consultation on routes 404 and 434

Michelle Wildish/Muhammed Mashud (TfL) and Ian Plowright (Planning and Strategic Transport)

e)    Oasis school – changes to route 466 and 60

Michelle Wildish/Muhammed Mashud (TfL)

f)      Capacity for route 166 in summer on Saturdays and Sundays

Michelle Wildish/Muhammed Mashud (TfL)

a)    Updates from TfL Actions arising from last meeting

412 Bus - Report back to the Panel on future changes to the route once more data on this route had been collated.

The TfL representative introduced the item by stating that a review of the route had been undertaken, and had found that the route had been reaching capacity at its busiest hours. There had been overcrowding observed in Selsdon on weekday mornings toward Purley, and that possible solutions to this were being considered; these included increasing the capacity of the 412 or the 612. The Access Officer stated that the 612 could often be out of sequence with school opening times, and it was stated that this would be looked into.

The Access Officer asked if it would be viable for one of the routes to run as a school bus during certain hours (as others did in the borough). The TfL representative stated that it was possible, but that it may cause knock on problems; there were eight routes which had been identified to have overcrowding issues, and these included the 289, 466, 410, 468 and 412. The Chair asked if the review of these routes could mean that capacity would be increased, and learned that this was possible.

130 Bus - Report back with progress toward an evidence based solution for the 130 bus route, concerning serving King Henry’s Drive from Vulcan Way.

The TfL representative stated that there were no easy solutions to the issue as King Henry’s Drive was unsafe for buses. There were a couple of solutions which had been considered, one of these had been to widen the bus, and another to change the route. Rerouting had seemed like the most viable option but more research needed to be done. The Mobility Forum representative asked if the bus could follow a loop at the end of its journey used by other local routes, and learned that this might be possible. The Chair asked how these decisions were made, and heard that they were based on both demand and the possible socioeconomic benefits.

Action Point: It was agreed that the Access Officer, the Mobility Forum representative and the TfL representative would discuss possible solutions after the meeting.

468 bus – Report back the length that the route would be monitored.

The TfL informed that Panel that more data was needed before a decision could be made and that the Panel would be informed of the outcome at the June 2019 meeting. The East Surrey Transport Committee informed the Panel that the route had a frequency increase in 2017, and then a reduction soon after. There were some parts of the route with no alternative and this had affected the residents greatly. The TfL representative responded that frequency needed to match demand, and this did cause some fluctuations in the service. It was suggested that surveys would be done in areas where there was known overcrowding.

Action Point: For TfL to report back the outcome of the 468 bus review.

b)    Bus services in the Town Centre

The TfL representative informed the Panel that the Town Centre bus services consultation had concluded in January 2019, with a number of different communities having been reached out too. Over 1500 responses had been received and were being analysed for a report to be released in mid-2019. The East Surrey Transport Committee representative raised concerns about the distance that users with mobility issues would need to travel between bus stops to change routes and possible reduced access to Fairfield Halls. The TfL representative replied that operators were assessing whether it was viable to continue to have the 75 bus serve Fairfield would be viable. The East Surrey Transport Committee representative commented that the plans to remove the 264 from the Town Centre would leave no direct route to St. George’s Hospital.

In response to questions from the Mobility Forum representative about the possibility of grouping certain bus stops together, the TfL representative said that it may be possible for this to be implemented and would be looked in to.

The Head of Transport and Chair thanked the East Surrey Transport Committee for their report, and informed the Panel the council’s report to TfL had been broader. The Head of Transport echoed the need to accommodate less mobile users, suggesting that the solution may not be buses, but something else that might better fit the agenda of Healthy Streets. The Head of Transport expressed hopes that the current planned changes would only be in place as long as they were fit for purpose, and that as the Town Centre changed, so would services.The Chair agreed on the need to consider less mobile users, and the accommodation of Healthy Streets, and queried where the savings made from the reduced services would be spent, as greater capacity was needed in the south of the borough. The TfL representative informed the Panel that any savings made would be redeployed in the borough.

The Mobility Forum representative asked about the possibility of moving Poplar Walk bus stops into West Croydon Bus Station, and the TfL representative replied that this would be fed back. The Access Officer asked whether the police and schools had been talked to as part of the consultation, and learned that schools had been written to and meetings with the council’s safety team had taken place. Forecasts for demand in the borough had been undertaken and fed into the consultation.

c)    Thornton Heath bus garage – (Update)

The Chair and TfL representative read sections from the following written response provided by Arriva in advance of the meeting:

“View on situation since last meeting and changes:

Whilst the volume of observations has continued, they have now begun to include bus dwell times across all periods of the day, and list numerous items which are associated with the operation of high frequency bus routes on a busy arterial route. The observations have also included route 109 operated by Abellio.  

Since the last meeting we have continued to deal with any staff failing to follow company procedures, and where possible (subject to staff availability) have also positioned a company official to oversee the vehicle run-ins and re-educate staff drivers, shunters and engineers alike. I would stress that not every observation listed by the complainant is evidence of staff failing to comply with correct procedures.

We have also had a new manager appointed to our contract cleaners (who manage the vehicle run-ins) and they are proving to be a great help in structuring the approach to the run-in, and we believe with the schedule changes due to come in on 2^nd March 2019, we should see further improvements.    

We have had our fuel delivery system checked and serviced to ensure that the speed of fuel delivery is at its optimum, thus reducing the time it takes to refuel buses and get them into the garage.

What is capacity for holding buses in this garage as determined by the lease?

I will have to contact the Arriva property department to confirm this, however the complainant’s continued suggestion that the garage was built with a capacity of 40 buses is incorrect. Irrespective of this point as previously agreed in mediation we have finalised a change to the schedules which comes into effect on Saturday 2nd March 2019 and transfers four buses to our Norwood garage site. Whilst there is a cost implication to this we are confident it will take some pressure off the evening run-in at its busiest period. In addition to this we have adjusted the schedule of the four night buses on route 64 to be cleaned and fuelled after the morning peak removing four vehicles movements in and four out alleviating some of the pressures during the morning run out.”

The resident informed the Panel that they had witnessed in-service buses using the road for crew changes. Run-ins had been taking up five blocks on the road, and there had been noise from both of these and idling buses. Other buses had been forced to stop in the road, as access had been blocked by parked buses, with people boarding the bus in the middle of the street. Another resident agreed with this, adding that they had heard a number of complaints, with these escalating in the previous two months.

The Chair expressed dissatisfaction at Arriva having not attended the meeting, and informed the Panel that they had met with representatives after the previous meeting and agreed an action plan. The Chair requested that there be an update on these at the June 2019 meeting; the Panel heard that the Head of Performance for TfL had been contacted over the issue. The TfL representative informed the Panel that senior management and the council were still looking for solutions.

d)    Consultation on routes 404 and 434

The TfL representative informed the Panel that the consultations had ended in February 2019, and had received over 600 responses. The data would be analysed and fed into a report on next steps by mid-2019, with the recommendations implemented by summer 2019. In response to queries from the Chair on what the proposed changes were, the Panel heard that there were plans to increase the frequency of both routes, with the 404 serving additional bus stops, and the 434 being diverted.

The East Surrey Transport Committee representative stated that they liked the ideas, but raised the possibility of issues with diverting the 434; the TfL representative replied that these had come through in the consultation.

Action Point: For TfL to report back on the outcome of the report, following the consultation on the 404 and 434 bus routes.

e)    Oasis school – changes to route 466 and 60

The TfL representative stated that the proposed changes to these routes would likely be beneficial to pupils at Oasis School, but that there were possible issues for students at Coulsdon Sixth Form; they went on to add that service increases for the 466 seemed justified, but that there might be other solutions. The Panel heard that before any increases to the 466 frequency were implemented, there would be a resurveying of Coulsdon Sixth Form in reply to concerns raised by the East Surrey Transport Committee representative.

Action Point: For TfL to report back on changes to the 466 and 60 bus routes concerning Oasis School.

f)      Capacity for route 166 in summer on Saturdays and Sundays

The TfL representative informed the Panel that increases to the 166 were being considered and that there would be an update at the next meeting. The solutions being considered included use of larger buses or more buses on the route. The Chair stated that the changes should be viable as the demand was clearly there, and the East Surrey Transport Committee representative added that for many people on the route the bus was unusable, due to the increased tourist demand in summer.

Action Point: For TfL to report back on any planned changes to the 166 during summer.