SOUTH WEST HERTS BUS NETWORK REVIEW
Appendix II
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
District Councils
Name
Ron Higgins – Hertsmere
Dr Steven Halls – Three Rivers
Network Review Responses/kay
Responded


Comments
Supports radical solution. Believes strategic network is appropriate for
Herts with emphasis on service reliability – are there any examples of
good practice we can learn from? Consideration should also be given
to town centre pedestrianisation where appropriate with bus only
access. Also need to ensure integration with other transport policy
initiatives and policies such as car parking provision and charges. Need
for improved ticketing with more emphasis on season tickets for
anything from weekly periods upwards. Need strong emphasis on
reliability. Quality Partnerships – prefer Option b with improved funding.
Innovation essential – DRT may have role in urban areas. Greater
Commitment required for bus priority, particularly in town centres. The
CC should consider capital purchase of buses – could link in with
Quality Contracts and Smart Cards. Additional investment needed for
infrastructure and interchanges. Funding - LA’s should be allowed to
retain a higher proportion of NNDR. Subject to legislative and
competition constraints need to improve through ticketing, transferable
tickets and use of season tickets. Need to improve rail/bus integration.
Service proposal guidelines supported in principle. Recommendations
for services affecting Hertsmere generally acceptable.
Strongly oppose reduction in R21. All services should be better
promoted and marketed. Improvements needed to Rickmansworth
interchange facilities. Should focus on customer requirements. Info
should be more easily available to those without web access. Services
for journeys to work should be marketed more effectively. Better use of
hopper buses. Greater provision for disabled.
21
Name
Alistair Robertson – Watford
22 Network Review Responses/kay
Responded

Comments
Theory behind radical solution sound, but actions and priorities will be
key. Need to address funding, control over bus services and
congestion. Does not take into account changing demographics.
Ticketing is important aspect. AVL is low key. Need to consider plans
for a bus station, or improve existing interchange facilities. Sees DRT
from residential areas to individual sites. Would like to see use of bus
sensitive signals. Capital purchase of buses should not be a priority.
LTP should look at hospitals, large medical practices and places of
entertainment. A source of infrastructure funding could be through
increased use of rail industry processes. S106 funding should only be
used where there is guaranteed long term funding for that service.
Intalink should investigate family return tickets. Need wider publicity of
ticket types. Need roadside information and RTP. Intalink could offer
subscription service. Herts Direct web site not user friendly.
Bus Operators
Name
Nick Knox – Arriva
Michael Finn – University Bus
Network Review Responses/kay
Responded


Comments
Noted that Review compliments LTP process – Arriva anxious to
become involved in LTP2. More can be achieved through partnership
arrangements. Congestion – need effective bus priority measures and
parking restrictions. Reduce level of car borne pupils. Publicity for bus
links to schools. Strategic network of inter urban services appropriate.
Major concern is how bus priority measures can be delivered. Need to
improve image of the bus. Frequency enhancements on major
corridors. Quality Partnerships offer best potential for achievement of
goals in Review. DRT appropriate in areas of low patronage. Review
traffic calming measures. AVL can provide significant benefits. Capital
grants to purchase newer vehicles. Enhance investment in
interchanges. Use of S106 funding should be reviewed. Review home
to school ticketing to try and reduce use of cars, also tickets need
simplifying. Para 8.3 not in line with Traffic Commissioner Guidelines.
No objections to radical solutions. Concept of providing strategic
network is appropriate. Suggested strategy contains required elements
for success. Quality Partnerships only practical way forward. Agree that
strong commitment to implement bus priority is achievable. Capital
purchase of buses – not sure if this will improve actual service delivery
on the ground – why not offer grants to improve specification of
vehicles? Roadside infrastructure and interchanges important. Local
firms be approached to fund roadside facilities outside their offices.
Intalink could target firms to create links on their own staff web pages to
timetable/journey planner pages. Supports objectives and guidelines
behind service proposals.
23
Sean O’Shea – Metroline Travel
(response from Martin Fisher)

Linda Sapin – HBCOA
Response from Clive King

Will run commercial services where they feel they are sustainable.
Amicable to running services on behalf of HCC. Support Intalink
objectives.To make bus travel attractive alternative, need to be given
high priority in highly visible locations. Important that buses are given
easy access to traffic objectives especially shopping centres and not
channelled into backwaters of towns.
Route 84 – being a commercial service we have to ensure the viability
of the route so any changes to the fare structure would have to be
carefully considered before introduction.
Route 242/610 – Satisfied with performance especially following
changes introduced in Oct 03. Not keen on involvement with route 610
due to the Universities financial input.
Route PB1 – will await results of current tender.
HBCOA members continue to press for realistic RPI for tendered
contracts. Lack of frequency on main corridors. Supports Quality
Partnerships rather than Quality Contracts. Favours enhancement of
effective inter-urban links. Proposes local, neighbourhood or village
park and ride. DRT desirable for social inclusion. Favour transponders
for traffic lights. Prefer grants to enhance vehicle quality. Good, safe
interchange essential. Recommend commercial sponsorship of
principal bus stops. Multi operator cards give flexibility but difficult until
county wide smart card system. Extensive use of Intalink vehicle.
Hertsmere JMP
Name
Robert Gamble
24 Network Review Responses/kay
Responded

Comments
Combined response with Anita Gamble, also a Hertsmere Councillor.
County should lay down rules as TfL. Strategic network of interurban
services. Quality contracts with elements of quality partnerships. Worth
trying demand responsive. Agree with bus priority. Have capital
purchase. Secondary interchanges. Try supermarkets, Watford FC,
Saracens for funding. Have through ticketing and transferable tickets.
RTPI.
Bus User Groups
Name
Philip Glazebrook
Network Review Responses/kay
Responded

Comments
Lack of up to date timetable information – suggests high level audit by
outside body. Radical solution required. Comfortable, reliable and
frequent services needed. Top county level transport budget be used
more effectively. Infrastructure should be bus passenger friendly. DRT
could enable better coverage. Need good RTPI. Bus acquisition should
be considered. Need proper supervision of bus stop parking. Use of
sponsorship, funds and S106 should provide basis to improve public
transport use. Travel cards/tickets should be inter-operable. Strategy in
6.12 can only happen if there are reliable and frequent services
operating.
25
HertsDirect Responses
Name
Paul Spelzini, RICS
C Young, private bus user
26 Network Review Responses/kay
Comments
Supports radical solution. Believes providing strategic network of inter urban services
appropriate for Herts. Suggested strategy does not contain all required elements for
success. Quality Partnerships and Quality Contracts best way to influence and work
with commercial bus operators. Strategy should include innovative approaches. Strong
commitment to implementing bus priority is necessary. Should consider capital
purchase of buses. Current balance of investment in infrastructure and interchanges
appropriate. Should invest in other areas through LTP. (Answered Yes to all of Q8).
Other sources of funding that should be used for bus network or infrastructure or
services are service and farecard branding, owned/leased vehicles, particularly if
promoting novel fuels or service type. Sponsorship and advertising/marketing of
services. Ticket types and market segments should be investigated by Intalink
Partnership. Also, better advertising/marketing in rural locations and pedestrianised
urban areas. Network needs to be rationalised but more frequent.
Strategic network of inter urban services appropriate for Herts. Suggested strategy
does not contain all of the required elements for success. Strategy should include
innovative approaches. Commitment to bus priority necessary and achievable. Current
balance of investment in infrastructure and interchanges not appropriate. Ticket types
and market segments should be investigated by Intalink Partnership. Currently a
monthly Arriva ticket cannot be used on other Intalink buses. There are other ways
Intalink should target users and provide information. Timetables should be in bus
shelters and include all the stops. Most useful would be RTPI, especially in very rural
areas. However, DRT would need to link to mainstream travel.
Parish & Town Council Responses
Name
Elstree & Borehamwood TC (Response
from Transport & Road Safety Forum)
Responded

Ridge PC

Abbots Langley PC

Network Review Responses/kay
Comments
Supports radical solution. Do not entirely believe a strategic network of
inter-urban services is appropriate for Herts. Implementing all strategy
components in para 5.6 would be an excellent start. Operators prefer
quality partnerships because they are left free to run when and where
they please, and charge what they please. Key factor in quality
contracts is cost. If Herts aspires to network like London, it must pay
what London does. Strategy should include innovate approaches.
Believes commitment to bus priority is necessary. No strong views on
capital purchase of buses. Would like to see HCC commit to
programme of first class modal interchange facilities. S106 funding
should be used for infrastructure or services. Rail operators should be
encouraged to promote Intalink ticketing. Timetable and destination
information needs to be improved.
Service 398 – Understand difficulties re congestion but this is the only
service that joints Potters Bar and Borehamwood and should be
protected.
Radical solutions necessary. More spacious seating for elderly and
disabled. Informal Quality Partnership with main operators would be
successful. Strategy should include innovative approaches eg DRT.
Commitment to bus priority not necessary or achievable. Capital
purchase of buses is a possible consideration – trialled in other areas?
Pleased with standards of bus shelters. Congestion problems at
Watford Junction Interchange. Funding for network infrastructure or
services could be the use of carnets and/or percentage of fares being
passed to driver. Carnets could be investigated by Intalink Partnership.
Users could be targeted by info in local press, radio, village magazines.
27
Other Responses
Name
John Cartledge
Carol Jones, CAP
Pam Hames – Parish & District Cllr in
Three Rivers area
Paul Spelzini – RICS East of England
Paul Spelzini – RICS East of England
Mandy Brine
28 Network Review Responses/kay
Comments
Comments invited by John Metcalf and Brian York.
Concern around B3 bus route.
Lives in Carpenders Park – estate of approx 2,000 dwellings mainly made up of
bungalows and flats. Mostly elderly pensioners who are the main users of the bus
service, which is easier form of transport for them. Perturbed to see outlook could be
bleak for bus service in her area. Would like to make a strong appeal to maintain this
service at current level.
TfL services should be determined by usage not agreements. Suggests various
changes to bus routes. Quality Partnerships – flexible funding is good. Would like
Northwood-Rickmansworth link instead of Mt Vernon link.
Re proposed 242/610 merger – is controversial and includes 5 distinct service patterns
like chalk and cheese but should be retained for flexibility and could all be contracts in
their own right.
Concerned about B3. If the County cannot continue to run local buses more tendering
should be considered.