Returning the 491 to its previous alignment would not solve associated delays that will also be effecting the 444 that also uses Gloucester Rd. Can you please consider a traffic light at the junction of Gloucester Rd and Sterling Way to at least operate during peak times. Please also advise why the bus alignment changes. Is it because the existing 5yr old StreetLite DF buses are being replaced by older, more polluting Alexander Dennis Enviro 200s that the Trust object to? That were removed from this route 5yrs ago? Or, is it due to temporary or permanent building works? Are the curtailments more to do with additional running time necessary to shuttle to the new depot at Potters Bar? The existing Operator runs out of the far more manageable depot, for this route, Northumberland Park. Why, if only pm peak is identified as an issue are off peak services being cut by one bus every two hours with a.m. peak also affected?. Please provide all loading and key points data and performance data you hold on the route including historic data.

---

TfL Reference numbers: 2697-1718, 2677-1718, 2649-1718,  2601-1718, 2575-1718, 2561-1718, 2237-1718 and 2336-1718.

Thank you for your requests (reference numbers above) received by Transport for London (TfL) between 6 and 16 December 2017 asking for various information relating to local transport issues around the Edmonton and Enfield areas.

Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and TfL’s information access policy. I can confirm TfL does hold the information you require.

However, given the extent of the information you are looking for as outlined in the six open requests and the additional two requests we have answered in the last two months, we are applying Regulation 12(4)(b) as we believe that the cumulative burden of answering the requests is manifestly unreasonable’ because providing the information you have requested would impose unreasonable costs on us and require an unreasonable diversion of resources. Whilst the Environmental Information Regulations do not specify a limit at which requests become unreasonably burdensome, the Information Commissioner has suggested that the 18 hour limit set by Parliament in respect of the Freedom of Information Act is a reasonable starting point: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1615/manifestly-unreasonable-requests.pdf

The potentially relevant information which we hold covers several transport modes and comprises a large number of potentially relevant emails, documents and correspondence held in various separate storage systems, all of which would have to be reviewed to ascertain their relevance to your requests. Information is held by numerous people within different business areas within TfL, in both electronic and paper files, all of which would have to be manually searched, to some extent at least, to answer your requests.

The use of this exception is subject to a public interest test, which requires us to consider whether the public interest in applying the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. We recognise that the release of information would promote accountability and transparency in public services and also help address your particular concerns about these transport issues. However, the time it would take to provide the information you have requested would divert a disproportionate amount of our resources from its core functions. On balance we consider that the public interest currently favours the use of the exception as we have not identified an overriding public interest that would justify responding to these requests under the EIR.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Sara Thomas

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---