Forum Topic

Why bother with "Consultations"?

....it seems they simply get ignored when the consulates do not give the right answers to the often loaded questions.We had this with the rather weird consultation for the BRS CPZ. Clearly engineered by policy makers and odd that no-one seems to know anyone who can fathom out why the pointless changes were implemented with such a tiny percentage of respondents.Again with a corrupted Consultation for cycleway CS6 which got rumbled. But his latest published result from TfL just shows the complete disregard for democracy and local people.We have a perverse situation whereby a social Berlin wall is to be imposed that will allow only the wealthier to drive between Chiswick and Brentford and at the same time reductions in bus services that will increase overcrowding in the bonkers belief that the great unwashed will walk or cycle.So when 70 % of a fairly high response get ignored, what is the point of wasting taxpayers money on such flimsy cover for inept political meddling?This from TfL:Dear Stakeholder Between 2 July and 12 August 2018, we consulted on proposals to change routes 27 and 440 in Chiswick. (We consulted separately on proposals to extend route 440 in Wembley). We received 607 responses to the consultation (including three responses from stakeholders). Thanks to all those who provided their views – we appreciate your patience in waiting for our reply. Of the 604 public responses, nine per cent supported or strongly supported the proposed changes to route 27, three per cent neither supported nor opposed them, 72 per cent opposed or strongly opposed them, three per cent did not use the route and 13 per cent did not answer.For the proposed changes to route 440, 14 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposals, 15 per cent neither supported nor opposed them, 14 per cent opposed or strongly opposed them, 43 per cent did not use the route and 14 per cent did not answer.We have reviewed all of the consultation responses and intend to proceed with the scheme as proposed in early 2019 with one alteration: instead of terminating at Hammersmith Grove, route 27 would terminate at a bus stand on Glenthorne Road currently used by rail replacement buses. The last and first stops would be at this location instead of at Hammersmith Grove. This is because the Hammersmith Grove stand has been removed as part of a local urban realm scheme.For more details including a full consultation report and our response to issues raised, please go to https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/. Yours faithfully image002.jpgAndrew Hatch

Raymond Havelock ● 2469d19 Comments

If you look at Rupa Huq's twitter feed you will see that she has a meeting with TfL scheduled on 3 December and suggests that anyone particularly interested in attending emails her.

Philippa Bond ● 2460d

The Local Plan is a classic example of a consultation or set of guidelines and rules that have, and are, being totally ignored.  It took several years for LBH to compile the Local Plan, including an extensive consultation.  The thing gets published with lots of good stuff such as 'no building higher than 20m', 'no ignoring flat density limits', 'make sure all developments have affordable housing' etc.Then, of course the whole thing is utterly ignored and we end up with the Morrisons development being approved (43 m high, ugly as a pig, practically all studio and 1 bed flats for a transient occupancy) and the new football stadium (double the maximum flat density, zero affordable housing and something that just doesn't sit right (caveat; apparently) about the way the former LBH director that got a £300k pay off on leaving LBH is now a consultant to the company that developed it.As Private Eye regularly says - one of the most rotten boroughs in London.

Lorne Gifford ● 2460d

I think that is why people have gone for cars which have the option of going over to petrol if the electric charge runs out.

Philippa Bond ● 2463d

Have a look on the motorway different plugs for different makes. Nissan and Renault are the same but they are the same group. Very expensive to charge after 25 mins when I read the charges on the machines.

Nicholas Beard ● 2464d

Aren't the batteries supposed to be a good way of storing the energy made from the solar panels on your roof - or the roof of your office etc?I've seen mention of petrol stations having charging meters and there are an increasing number on the streets.  Using a smartphone app you can see where the vacant ones are.  There are ones at larger supermarkets.  There are now several speeds at which you can charge your car.  There are improvements all the time.https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/electric-vehicles-london-0

Philippa Bond ● 2464d

You are right about electric cars especially the batteries. When large numbers need to be disposed of what a problem. Remember the fridge mountain, they had to go to Germany in the end. I saw a programme on HYDROGEN cars in Paris mainly taxis. Not a bad word. On the dashboard was a little switch to allow you to dump the water produced every so often when parked. Only problem was the cost £45000.00 for a small one. I was talking to a man who filling up with LPG at a garage. He liked it and I wonder why that never became popular.

Nicholas Beard ● 2464d

I would quite like an electric car, but the outlay cost is way too high and set against it's handicaps, lack of range, and already increasing costs of charging and the obvious need to have a driveway, unless there is some real leap in battery range and technology, it's a non runner.  Plus the sheer environmental damage inflicted in the production of batteries and electric motor raw materials makes using fossil fuels look like water.The electric car as a local runabout is the best option but with increasingly limited space and anti any sort of transport polices it overlooks the strength of mainstream fuelled vehicles.  Versatility and go anywhere ability.  You would need two cars instead of one.Hybrids are OK but hydrodgen looks like a winner - if the methods of production can be made efficient.For me the car has to be everything in one.  A people mover, a van, a long distance vehicle and a runabout, small and efficient but able to cope with all weathers and climates.  Even though I prefer to use the train for as many long journeys as possible, it is seriously costly and limits what when and how one carries out business. Carrying 15-20 kg of work equipment on public transport especially with many new trains being rather bereft of storage space and comfortable seats especially on long trips is becoming a real drag. I have to say I am drifting back to using the car more regularly.

Raymond Havelock ● 2465d

Soon employers will not provide parking spaces. I lost my parking space because the employer said it was too  dear to rent. Electric cars will be forced on us I can see it coming.

Nicholas Beard ● 2466d

Not really Nicholas. The statistics do not reflect the reality.  Yes, the 5 litre car does emit less per cc. But it does not emit less than the 850cc car. So the criteria discriminates. One person in the 5 litre is still polluting 4 times more plus using more road space and inflicting more wear and tear from it's weight.  A modern sub 1 litre or 1.2 litre engine is far more efficient per passenger, even in a medium sized car. But the point is it is divisive, just like the Berlin wall was divisive between people.This is a division that affects those who have and those who have less.Can a retired person afford to sell their car for an electric one or new hybrid?Very few will be able to do that.Can hard pressed family do the same?Can a working vehicle be replaced before it's depreciation and operating viability has brought a return?  Only if you have somebody else footing the bill.To take an elderly relative to the Acton Day Centre 4 days a week ( which is also soon to be doubled in charges) will cost almost £50 extra a week if that carers car is over 6 years old or does not meet the criteria ( which consists of mainly  high end & costly new vehicles)  That on top of the increasing charges for care.It is the same for others with special needs, not to mention the legions of carers and ordinary friends and relatives who use cars for errands for those who cannot get about so easily. That alone saves the state and taxpayers billions and comes out of ordinary humanity and peoples own pockets.Ordinary people do not have this sort of money or resources. Nor do those who work in such places. Many have to use a car simply to be able to turn up for work and be able to operate.  It is rarely subsidised in service occupations.So it is a divisive action and should have been bounded by the M25 where it would be better to prevent the daily influx of commuting vehicles where alternatives are more viable.

Raymond Havelock ● 2466d

Surely this is good. If a five litre car emitts less than an 850cc car people want the smaller car off the road. Generally people are happy with these charges. There are no protests about charging zones. Look today in France people are unhappy about the price of petrol so they are going to block the roads. We wil pay up no bother.

Nicholas Beard ● 2466d

The ULEZ Boundary which will cut Ealing and Acton and Brentford and Chiswick in two.It will be a chargeable boundary unless you drive a very high end vehicle Believe it or not a Biturbo Mercedes with a 5 litre engine will be permitted but a 850cc engined mini car will not. All because the emmissioned per CC are lower in a massive engined car.Or if you are wealthy enough to drive an electric car or a Euro 6 soon to be 7 rated vehicle.98% of local residents vehicles in Ealing and Hounslow will be chargeable.Only those with ample funds will be able to shoulder a £12.50 daily charge simply to cross the A406.Given that many services are located that side of the A406 ( particularly for elderly and needy Ealing residents, this will make it unaffordable for many who otherwise cannot use public transport....which is to be reduced in capacity and frequency.Joined up thinking from the Mayors office and not a whisper of dissent from his adoring apostles in West London Boroughs.If it were a sitcom or a fantasy movie no-one would believe it.

Raymond Havelock ● 2467d

What is a social Berlin Wall please?

Nicholas Beard ● 2467d

I agree. There was a recent "consultation" from TFL regarding curtailing the route 27 at Hammersmith instead of going on to Chiswick Park: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/user_uploads/routes-27-440-consultation-report.pdf  One of their arguments on page 6 was that people could instead use the 237 to go from Hammersmith to Chiswick. Slight problem: the 237 doesn't go through Hammersmith!

Gary Padbury ● 2467d

The answer is No. Most consultations go under the radar of passengers who use  or may use the services and can only be found online and that's if you know where to look.In the real world why would anybody look?  They have lives to live and living to earn.You would think that a poster would be on every bus , every bus stop and leaflets on every bus on the routes concerned.Not a chance. Yet this is something London Transport did do decades ago.In a factual way and not in the rather patronising and pre-decided way they do now.When they want to, TFL will contact a huge amount of people to ensure they get a response that they want. Cycling Groups ( one of which I am a member of  ) got deluged with leaflets and reminders to participate in the Consultation and to a far wider area than the CS6 corridor. Even a rep from TfL to explain the vitality of the scheme. But many residents right on top of the scheme remain oblivious to it and it's implications.A classic example is the current 'consultation TfL are running to end the use of old type Routemaster buses on the designated heritage service which is now down to a rather intermittent service on the 15.The two heritage routes 9 and 15 were a huge success and a massive pull for tourists, especially as the Routemaster bus is voted as one of the top 12 most iconic symbols in the world. And constantly photographed in a London that is seeing much of it's heritage engulfed by rather overbearing developments.You would think TfL would be rather proud of such a legacy. But No. The latest consultation to minimise the service to summer weekends only is on the grounds of 'lack of wheelchair access" No mention of the fact the conductor is there to help all manner of other mobility challenged passengers who delight in a ride on a "proper bus"Needless to say TfL have buried this consultation and not even tourist and visitor dependent businesses have been consulted.So try finding this one.  Before the thought Police of City Hall and TfL try and erase another aspect of this City's culture......We are proposing to make changes to the route 15 heritage vehicle service and would like to hear your views. Currently, the 15 heritage service operates between Tower Gateway and Trafalgar Square daily between 9:30am and 6:30pm. Other buses that cover this route include the 11 and 26, as well as the main route 15 service. We are proposing to reduce the 15 heritage service to run on summer weekends and bank holidays only. This is due to a number of factors, including:o    Falling weekday ridershipo  The bus does not allow step-free access We would like to know what you think about our proposals. Please send your comments by Wednesday 21 November, to consultations@tfl.gov.uk marking Route 15 heritage in the subject field. Many thanks, Poppy Poppy WindsorCommunity Partnerships Specialist, Central | Public AffairsPhone: 020 3054 9029 (auto 89029) | Mobile: 07720 700194Red Zone, 9th Floor, 5 Endeavour Square, Westfield Ave, Stratford E20 1JNPoppyWindsor@tfl.gov.ukimage001.png

Raymond Havelock ● 2468d

Who are these Consultations issued to considering there appears to be a figure for non-reply?  Would there be better ways of advertising them.  Are they advertised on the bus routes concerned?

Philippa Bond ● 2468d

I think you'll find that 'consultations' are a statutory requirement for outfits like TfL, the problem is for us they are not binding, or come to that even considered. The plans are made and the motions gone through, why waste the time and money is the real question. Agree that local councillors will not comment after their appalling disregarding of the infamous Church St. 'consultation'.

Vanessa Smith ● 2468d

The consultations are just jobs for mates.

Steve Taylor ● 2468d

I wish the consultation of 23rd June 2016 would be ignored.

Paul Scullion ● 2468d

Local councillors will stay well away from this thread considering they do not take any notice of consultation results either

Paul Fisher ● 2468d