Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Board Report July 2008

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy Final Report Lancaster & Morecambe Vision/Lancashire County Council July 2008

........................

Prepared by:

Approved by:

Tom Marsden/Nick Ovenell Senior/Graduate Consultant

...........

Kevin Riley Regional Director

Lancaster District Transport Vision Rev No 1 2

Comments Final Report Final Report – Revision 1

Date 04.07.08 09.07.08

Lynnfield House, Church Street, Altrincham, WA14 4DZ Telephone: 0161 927 8200 Fax: 0161 927 8499 Website: http://www.fabermaunsell.com Job No 52552TALT

Reference

Date Created July 2008

This contains confidential and commercially sensitive information, which shall not be disclosed to third parties. c:\documents and settings\marsdent\desktop\final report 080709.doc

Table of Contents

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction and Context....................................................................................... 7 1.2 Baseline Findings.................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Key Identified Themes ........................................................................................ 10

2

Vision for the Lancaster District.................................................................................. 11 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 The Transport Vision .......................................................................................... 11 2.3 Highways Strategy: Connecting the District ....................................................... 12 2.4 Park & Ride......................................................................................................... 20 2.5 The Taxi Economy – Transition to Public/Sustainable Transport....................... 21 2.6 Public Transport Strategy ................................................................................... 22 2.7 Rapid Transit Concepts ...................................................................................... 23 2.8 Improved Interchange/Station Development Zones ........................................... 28 2.9 Integrated Ticketing ............................................................................................ 28 2.10 Combined-Use Transport ................................................................................... 29 2.11 Cycling Strategy.................................................................................................. 30 2.12 Signage and Information Strategy ...................................................................... 35 2.13 Reducing the Need to Travel/Travel Planning.................................................... 41 2.14 Summary............................................................................................................. 44

3

Coarse Appraisal of Schemes ..................................................................................... 45 3.1 Summary............................................................................................................. 45 3.2 Principal Problems .............................................................................................. 45 3.3 Long List of Solutions ......................................................................................... 46 3.4 Principal Problem 1 - Poor Connectivity ............................................................. 50 3.5 Principal Problem 2 – Lancaster City Centre Traffic Congestion ....................... 54 3.6 Principal Problem 3 – Poor Pedestrian and Cyclist Environment and Public Realm.................................................................................................................. 57 3.7 Coarse Appraisal ................................................................................................ 59

4

Scheme Development ................................................................................................... 61 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 61 4.2 Rapid Transit/Rail Strategy................................................................................. 61 4.3 Park & Ride and Interceptor Car Parking Strategy............................................. 71 4.4 Accessibility to the South (Galgate Issue) .......................................................... 81 4.5 Lancaster City Centre One-Way System Review............................................... 86 4.6 Morecambe Town Centre Improvements and Masterplan ............................... 103 4.7 Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charging .................................................... 111

5

Strategy, Phasing and Costing .................................................................................. 115 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 115 5.2 Phasing and Costing......................................................................................... 115 5.3 Future Funding.................................................................................................. 115 5.4 Heysham to M6 Link Road (Postscript) ............................................................ 120

6

Final Vision and Strategy ........................................................................................... 121 6.1 Conclusion and Way Forward........................................................................... 121

Appendix A – Long List of Schemes ..................................................................................... 124 Appendix B – Coarse Appraisal & Technical Note .............................................................. 131

Appendix C – City Centre TRIPS Model Analysis ................................................................ 134

Table of Tables Table 2.1 Evolutionary Steps to Targeting Congestion Table 2.2 Potential Public Transport Schemes Table 2.3 Typical Evolution of Bus Services to Full Intermediate Mode Table 3.1 Potential Opportunities Table 3.2 Selected Schemes Table 4.1 Comparison of Rapid Transit Modes Table 4.2 Expected Journey Times from Morecambe to Lancaster (AM Peak) Table 4.3 Expected Journey Times from Lancaster University to Lancaster (AM Peak) Table 4.4 Potential Park & Ride Locations: Advantages and Disadvantages Table 4.5 Lancaster City Centre Gyratory Optioneering Table 4.6 Congestion Charging Benefit and Disbenefit Analysis Table 5.1 Strategy, Phasing and Costing Table 6.1 Key Interventions Table of Figures Figure 1.1 Peninsula Effect Figure 2.1 Consolidation Centre Concept Figure 2.2 Lancaster District Road Hierarchy Figure 2.3 Strategic Roads – Local (cross-section) Figure 2.4 Local Roads (cross-section) Figure 2.5 Neighbourhood Roads (cross-section) Figure 2.6 Potential Cycle Schemes Figure 4.1 Potential Rapid Transit Modes (schematic) Figure 4.2 Morecambe Rapid Transit Routeing Figure 4.3 Lancaster City Centre Rapid Transit Routeing Figure 4.4 Preferred Rapid Transit Routeing Figure 4.5 Rapid Transit Routeing & Constraints Figure 4.6 Road Based Park & Ride Figure 4.7 Interceptor Car Parking Strategy Figure 4.8 Auction Mart Existing Access Figure 4.9 Auction Mart Potential Routeing and Access Options Figure 4.10 Existing Lancaster Access Figure 4.11 Galgate Solution: Low Intervention Figure 4.12 Galgate Solution: Medium Intervention Figure 4.13 Galgate Solution: High Intervention Figure 4.14 Lancaster Gyratory Optioneering (Options A, B & C) Figure 4.15 Lancaster Gyratory Optioneering (Options D, E & F) Figure 4.16 Lancaster Gyratory Optioneering (Options G, H & I) Figure 4.17 Lancaster Gyratory Optioneering (Options J & K) Figure 4.18 Lancaster Gyratory Optioneering - Option J (cross-section) Figure 4.19 A6 King Street/Market Street – Existing (cross-section) Figure 4.20 A6 King Street/Market Street – Proposed (cross-section) Figure 4.21 Dalton Square – Conservative Option Figure 4.22 Dalton Square – Radical Option Figure 4.23 Morecambe Select Link Analysis – eastbound trips Figure 4.24 Morecambe Select Link Analysis – westbound trips Figure 4.25 Morecambe Rail Station Gateway – Low Intervention Figure 4.26 Morecambe Rail Station Gateway – Medium Intervention Figure 4.27 Morecambe Rail Station Gateway – Medium Intervention Figure 4.28 Marine Road Cross-Section Figure 4.29 Morecambe Gateway Feature Figure 4.30 Morecambe Masterplan Figure 4.31 Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charge Option 1 – Toll Bridges Figure 4.32 Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charge Option 2 – Main Gyratory Cordon Figure 4.33 Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charge Option 3 – Full Gyratory Cordon Figure 4.34 Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charge Option 4 – Full Cordon (incl. bridges) Figure 4.35 Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charge Option 5 – Area Charging Figure 5.1 Phase 0

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Appendix C

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 City Centre Baseline Flows Gyratory Optioneering – Option A Gyratory Optioneering – Option B Gyratory Optioneering – Option D Gyratory Optioneering – Option F Gyratory Optioneering – Option G Gyratory Optioneering – Option H Gyratory Optioneering – Option I Gyratory Optioneering – Dalton Square Analysis

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

1

Foreword The Economic Vision for Lancaster & Morecambe is of a district that has overcome its physical divisions and is developing into a successful centre for Lancashire and Cumbria, in line with the objectives of the Regional Spatial Strategy. It recognises that Lancaster & Morecambe and its rural hinterland must act as one if we are to improve our collective economy and increase wealth generation and quality of life for all. All parts of our district need to be accessible, from within the district itself and from the natural hinterland which gravitates to the City. Movement within and into the district should be quick, easy, inexpensive and pleasant. This is not presently the case and we consider our local transport and road networks as being a major barrier to economic growth.

We also need to consider wider concerns about climate change and the need to encourage people to use alternatives to the private car.

In order to determine a robust and evidence-based transport strategy for the future, Lancaster & Morecambe Vision Board, in partnership with Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council, has commissioned a major study into visionary improvements to our transport and road networks. The study was funded jointly by Lancashire County Council and the Northwest Regional Development Agency. Following a formal tendering procedure, the contract was awarded to respected specialist transport consultants, Faber Maunsell. Twelve months of analysis and stakeholder and public consultation has been undertaken and considerable time and care spent appraising a range of options. We are now pleased to present Faber Maunsell’s final report and recommendations.

In publishing this report, the three commissioning bodies have no obligation to share all of its individual conclusions and recommendations and acknowledge that the process of considering, evaluating and pursuing recommendations in the report lies ahead. However, for the first time in recent years, Lancaster District has a detailed technical report which will assist in the formulation of an integrated transport vision and strategy. We particularly welcome the suggestion of a phased approach to implementation, which will be useful in determining priorities and establishing action plans.

The challenge ahead is to consider the report, set priorities, develop proposals and pursue funding for plans based on them. The amount of public sector funding for transport is inevitably finite and Lancaster District must compete with equally worthy places elsewhere in the UK. Contributions to funding will also be sought from private sector developers looking to invest in the district whose developments will impact upon our fragile transport systems.

Economic growth is important for the Lancaster District. We wish to see average wages rise, levels of worklessness fall, career development opportunities increase, and greater numbers of graduates staying within the district after they have completed university education. If these things happen, quality of life will improve for all. The ability to access places of work and to move with ease within the district will lie at the heart of our economic regeneration.

We commend this report to you for serious consideration.

Prof. Paul Wellings Chair Lancaster & Morecambe Vision

Cllr Hazel Harding Leader Lancashire County Council

Cllr Roger Mace Leader Lancaster City Council

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

2

Executive Summary The Task Faber Maunsell was appointed in January 2007 to develop a comprehensive 15–20 year Transport Vision and Strategy for the Lancaster District. This document is the resulting final report from the 15 month study.

The joint client group consisted of Lancashire County Council as Highway Authority, in conjunction with Lancaster and Morecambe Vision as the key partnership body with responsibility for driving the economic agenda. This in itself is an unusual, yet very positive client combination meaning that the focus of the work undertaken by Faber Maunsell has constantly been a balance between movement needs and those of land use planning and regeneration. In order to assist with the consideration of how physical space can be best utilised, Faber Maunsell invited Taylor Young Landscape Architects to assist in providing some of the graphical representation within the work.

An important consideration within this work was the Heysham to M6 Link Road proposal, which was taken as a fixed element of the evolving strategy for the district whilst the result of the public inquiry was being awaited. Faber Maunsell was however requested to consider schemes that could fit with or without such a link – an important element of any phasing plan whatever the outcome.

Key objectives of the work are summarised below: Key Study Objectives

Assess strengths and weaknesses of the existing transport network, in particular in relation to future land use change.

Develop a range of deliverable transport solutions to aid economic growth, yet address social inclusion and accessibility for all.

To produce proposals that consider local and strategic access and back these up with a suggested and phased implementation plan.

Methodology In order to achieve the study objectives, Faber Maunsell undertook a structured project methodology, which commenced with a comprehensive baseline analysis, assessing key strengths and weaknesses of the network and importantly discussing issues with the project steering group and other key stakeholders in a series of discussions, including both officers and members of both County and City Councils.

From the outset, a key aim was not to become an overly technical ‘transport modelling led’ piece of work, but to consider practical difficulties and issues for the future, then develop scheme options to be delivered in an achievable way. The need to be visionary, yet work within what is likely to continue to be a relatively constrained funding environment, was a critical element of our work. We believe that the study area is compact enough to be able to afford to fund the schemes we have suggested, yet large enough to make a real positive difference to quality of life and economic wellbeing.

The baseline study identified a series of different types of movements and therefore demands for travel within the area, which can be summarised in the following table. Each of these requires different potential types of travel and schemes. A key to success will be accommodating the desirable travel types as cost effectively as possible, using measures that are capable of supporting more than just one of these journey types.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

3

Key Types of Movement in the District

Strategic movements through and past Lancaster – primarily using the M6 Motorway and West Coast Mainline Railway, providing little benefit locally but with low local detriment.

Detrimental through movements – for example from Preston to Heysham needing to travel on the local road network, adding to pressures but giving little back.

Movements from the hinterland into Lancaster and Morecambe – for employment, leisure and education in particular – recognising that the area plays a role as a central place for a substantial semi-rural catchment.

Movements from within the urban area to and from the centres of Lancaster and Morecambe – local journeys that are often very short in terms of distance, but due to congestion can often be un-attractively long in terms of journey time.

Movements across the central areas – for example from Carnforth to the University – often a result of ‘de-centralised land uses’, but being detrimental to the areas that they pass through.

It is important to note that throughout the work, a variety of different media were used to engage with both key interested parties and the general public, including consultation events during October/November 2007 as scheme options emerged. This element tried to consider each of the above groups, in particular those living locally that would be most directly affected by proposals on a day-to-day basis. At baseline stage, the following key issues were identified: Summary of Key Movement Issues to Resolve

Lack of connectivity between Lancaster and Morecambe and between Lancaster and the University.

Congestion in and on approaches to Lancaster City Centre.

Lack of integration between main commercial areas and transport hubs in Lancaster City Centre.

Lack of really high quality public transport to compete with the car.

Limited River Lune crossing opportunities.

Development in the south curtailed by Galgate crossroads.

Insufficient public transport in Lancaster City Centre meaning effective bus services are increasingly difficult to run.

Poor pedestrian facilities and public realm in Morecambe.

Cross-town movement of trips and lack of alternatives to the car for these.

Need for increased linkages to surrounding rural residential communities.

Increasing access pressure from development, particularly along the River Lune corridor.

The study then progressed to identify specific schemes around which a series of options were identified. These included: Key Themes for Potential Schemes to Adhere to

To build upon core assets of the city rather than create new.

To intercept long stay and long distance visitors to Lancaster and Morecambe at the edges and offer viable alternatives to driving into the centre.

To encourage greater use of more sustainable high occupancy modes for longer trips.

To continue to create a walk-able and cycle-able urban area making greater use of natural resources such as the River Lune and Lancaster Canal corridors.

To develop a climate that ‘raises the bar’ for public transport provision.

Following the baseline work, a series of over 50 schemes were identified that could address the issues and problems of the district. Faber Maunsell then developed a series of criteria to group and assess these schemes against. An important element within the development of these criteria was the need to balance between the assessment needs of the two different parts of the client group. Lancashire County Council required criteria that fit with national and local transport objectives and could therefore be considered in correlation with other schemes of the area, while Lancaster and Morecambe Vision had objectives that linked more to regeneration

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

4

and development of the ‘offer’ of the area. The result therefore consisted of a substantial ‘long list’ table which we believe struck a balance between these two key assessment requirements.

Proposals Following the assessment, the highest scoring schemes were taken forward with 17 schemes proceeding to a short list. These were then consolidated into 9 interlinked projects that would address key issues for the district. These are summarised below: Key Transport Projects for Development

Rapid transit between Morecambe, Lancaster and the University.

Park & Ride and ‘interceptor’ parking strategy.

Solution to the Galgate issues.

Lancaster City Centre One-Way system review.

Lancaster City Centre Congestion charging consideration.

Morecambe Town Centre Improvements and Masterplan.

District wide cycling strategy.

District wide signage and information strategy.

Reducing the need to travel.

In respect of Rapid Transit, the key aim was to improve connectivity between Lancaster and Morecambe, but also to link towards the University. In order to make such a scheme viable, it is essential that it is linked to both the Park & Ride sites (including potential new suggestions along the M6-Heysham Link) and has intermediate stops along its length so that it can serve both local and wider urban needs. Key issues considered included potential route alignments and types of vehicles needed. On the latter, a series of options were considered but bearing in mind the likely volumes of use, alignment constraints and needs for flexibility, it was suggested that a bus-based rapid transit system would appear most viable. This does however require substantial segregation and priority, not least clear use of a potential new bridge across the River Lune.

This Rapid Transit link would be an integral part of the Park & Ride offer for the area. Rather than have dedicated buses running purely from Park & Ride to the City Centre, the sites would be part of the network, in the same way as parking at rail stations is an integral part of the network in larger urban areas. Park & Ride will be economically difficult to maintain unless it is part of the wider picture, including being a key element of the ‘interceptor’ parking concept – encouraging (but not forcing) longer distance or long stay drivers to leave their cars at the edge of the urban area. Indeed, we suggest that parking strategy needs to be built alongside Park & Ride – making it less attractive to stay for long periods in City Centre car parks through cost and availability deterrents, but providing viable alternatives. For those who do wish to park in the central areas of both Lancaster and Morecambe, therefore taking valuable space both in the central areas and on approaching roads, interceptor parking at each end of the City Centre will be needed to avoid unnecessary ‘hunting’ for spaces at the wide range of smaller car parks that currently exists.

At Galgate, we suggest a series of options which need to start being considered quickly in order that they can be implemented in the longer term. These include radical options for Junction 33, once again closely linked to the Park & Ride and Rapid Transit issues. It has to be recognised that unless a radical solution is found, congestion at the south end of Lancaster will inhibit development of the University and City Centre – two key drivers of the local economy. Shortterm local solutions may address some issues in that time period but more substantial options are needed for the longer term. While needing to focus on managing the relationship with the car, these cannot be allowed to be options that simply build more car capacity for development or to access the City Centre, since the local environment cannot cope with car-oriented development.

In terms of the one way system in Lancaster, Faber Maunsell see re-distribution of roadspace as integral to the overall strategy. At present, too much use is made by those passing through or in many ways worse, entering at one end to access parking at the other end. A series of scheme options were reviewed which will need more modelling and assessment as preferred options for rapid transit, Park & Ride and car parking are developed. The report does however

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

5

demonstrate how at key locations, such as Dalton Square, better environments for those on foot could be created.

The often controversial issue of Congestion Charging, which is central to funding considerations of many new schemes, was considered. The conclusion reached was that under current circumstances, and bearing in mind the costs of implementing and operating a ‘London-style’ scheme against the likely revenue, would not be feasible. If costing levies are to be used to manage movement, it is important that these are linked to other revenue generation, in particular parking costs – differentiating these at different locations.

In respect of Morecambe Town Centre, there are substantial changes planned in the town over forthcoming years, however we suggest that there are substantial areas of poorly used land – in particular major areas of at-grade car parking and roadspace along Marine Road that could be better used. Our suggestions demonstrate such changes and suggest they should be considered in more depth. It is imperative that the town centre links into the suggested Rapid Transit system and therefore wider district strategy.

In terms of cycling and walking, much good work has been undertaken in the district to date.

The report suggests proposals that build upon current initiatives and develop networks further.

Once again, it is important that initiatives like Park & Ride are linked into – for example, providing cycle hire at key points so that urban residents can hire a bike to get into the country or rural residents can, on a pleasant day, hire a bike to cycle from park and ride into the City Centre. Overall, this mentality summarises our approach – to look at ways of inter-linking schemes that have traditionally been ‘stand-alone’ measures.

A number of the key actions recommended in this report are contained in the following table.

Key Recommendations

Continued support and promotion of School and Workplace Travel Planning and where feasible, instigating a reduction in the need to travel.

Provision of enhanced rail services and facilities on existing lines.

Provision of enhanced bus priority measures and enhanced service including in particular, evening and weekend provision.

Provision of enhanced and new cycling training, routes and infrastructure, including development of combined storage and cycle hire facilities.

Greater promotion of interchange between modes, in particular regard to ticketing and provision of enabling infrastructure.

Development of a district-wide Park & Ride and ‘interceptor’ parking strategy, incorporating series of new features such as ‘Park & Cycle’ facilities and delivery collection facilities.

Further investigation into the feasibility of providing a rapid-transit system linking at least the following locations; M6 J34, Lancaster University, Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe and including the creation of a new River Lune bridge, primarily focused on public transport, cycling and walking.

Further consideration to radical solutions to the ‘Galgate issue’ to improve access to/from the south of the district and facilitate new development.

Commissioning of a comprehensive Morecambe Masterplan to improve access and movement, public realm and facilitate further development opportunities.

Further investigation and modelling work to establish potential modifications to the road layout in both Lancaster and Morecambe centres, to provide more priority to pedestrians and incorporating potential rapid transit system and parking proposals.

Beyond the development of proposals, a series of phasing and costing tables were developed looking at schemes in a series of three phases – the first ‘quick wins’ being within 5 years, Phase 2 between 5 and 15 years and Phase 3 from 10 to 20 years. Broad costs associated with schemes were made, based upon similar schemes from across the UK, with initial thoughts on operating costs and revenue for key proposals.

Summary We believe that the report resulting from this study is one which can be taken forward and delivered to provide positive change in accessibility for all in the district. We believe that it is capable of being implemented, yet visionary enough to be challenging to deliver. Proposals for

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

6

items such as the New Lune Crossing, Rapid Transit, Galgate changes and Park & Ride will be controversial, technically challenging and, in some cases, long term. The strategy is by no means anti-car. Indeed, it aims to strike a balance that provides more opportunities and greater priority for those who can change, yet accommodates the car where it is needed.

It is a fact that Lancaster in particular, already suffers from significant detriment to its environment, and therefore economy, due to traffic congestion, particularly at peak times. It is a fact that land in the area is a finite resource and has to be used wisely. It is a fact that carborne provision cannot continue to be made in the manner it is accustomed to. This strategy is both viable, with commitment, and potentially extremely beneficial to the quality of life of many in the area. Perhaps the biggest threat to the district’s attractiveness as a place to live work and play is doing nothing. This strategy is the beginning not the end. It is a framework, not an absolute blueprint. In order to proceed, we recommend that the commissioning organisations adopt the principles of the strategy, including suggestions for progression, and in particular, continue to use the document as a reference tool to remind of the need for inter-relationships between modes and to stand firm when less than satisfactory suggestions are made.

Faber Maunsell

1 1.1

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

7

Introduction Introduction and Context Faber Maunsell was appointed in January 2007 to develop a comprehensive 15—20 year Transport Vision and Strategy for the Lancaster District. The key objectives outlined in the study brief and addressed in this report include:

To assess the strengths and weaknesses of the existing transport network in the area and recommend future improvements and other measures to ensure the network fully responds to and supports the long term vision; To identify current and planned development opportunities on the road network; To identify the key strategic transportation issues emerging as a result of the proposed Lancaster City Centre Developments; To develop a range of deliverable transport solutions to facilitate economic growth and address social inclusion and accessibility; and To produce an implementation plan for the vision and strategy including phasing and prioritisation, potential early wins, indicative costs and potential delivery mechanisms.

The vision is to be ambitious, yet realistic and maximise the benefits for Lancaster and Morecambe, by addressing the following issues:

Improve access and movement between the two key centres; Alleviate congestion in the city centre and at other key hotspots; Improve the quality of life for local residents, addressing the environment and air quality; Address the negative impact of traffic and parking on the major architectural and historic assets and public spaces; Restore public confidence in public transport as a viable alternative to the car; Connecting the rural hinterland; and To assist economic development and support regeneration in the district, with particular reference to Morecambe.

In order to illustrate a number of the emerging transport and development opportunities presented by the Vision, Faber Maunsell enlisted Taylor Young, a multi-disciplinary designorientated practice, to assist in developing and presenting these ideas. In particular, Taylor Young has developed a number of options for public realm and landscaping opportunities.

Work throughout this project has been undertaken through close contact with Lancashire County Council and Lancaster & Morecambe Vision.

In October/November 2007, a significant public consultation exercise was undertaken to ensure that the people of the Lancaster District were aware of both the potential and the overall objectives of this strategy. Similarly, local city politicians were also, via the Lancaster & Morecambe Vision Transport Steering Group, engaged at appropriate times throughout the process to make sure we were aware of their views and that the overall aim and scale of proposals was understood.

Within our brief for this work, it was stipulated that the Major Scheme proposal – the Heysham to M6 Link Road, which links Junction 34 of the M6 motorway to the existing LancasterMorecambe Bypass (A683) was taken as a fixed element of the evolving strategy for the District. Faber Maunsell looked to capitalise on the relief provided to the local network and to use this to the benefit of the city, in terms of allowing both increased amenity within the City Centre and improved transport and air quality on the approaches to and within the City Centre.

This document follows on from the Baseline Report finalised in January 2008, which summarised the details of:

Review of available data, including a large number of previous studies, reports and scheme proposals, both policy and scheme led.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

8

Regular and comprehensive site visits to the District and in particular, to Lancaster and Morecambe to consider issues at different times of the day/week; and Discussion with a variety of key stakeholders and the client study team group, including public transport/planning officers at Lancashire County Council and relevant officers of Lancaster City Council.

Owing to the nature of this work, this document is not based on extensive quantified data analysis – i.e. not based on extensive city wide modelling or analysis of statistics. It is based on a broad range of evidence and is aimed at producing a qualitative based Vision and Strategy for more extensive refinement. Detailed economic and financial appraisal is for a later stage as clarity over land use options and viability of individual schemes becomes clearer. The most imperative output of this work is the development of the missing high level vision for the District, from which to develop future year schemes. This document therefore aims to build on the work presented in the baseline and provide clarity over the way forward for the Lancaster District to develop its Transport Vision and Strategy.

The work is the important first step in presenting a clear vision for access and movement within the District. Schemes have been suggested that allow relatively early ‘wins’, however we suggest that the real gain is in some of the longer term, bolder and sometimes politically, more difficult schemes. A single Lancaster-Morecambe entity has an excellent opportunity, to strengthen its attractiveness and increase its economic viability to the obvious benefit to those working and residing in the District.

Clearly, funding will always be an issue for infrastructure schemes, no matter what their scale.

Our view is however that without an overriding vision, it is impossible to develop or strengthen funding cases. The city of Lancaster, together with Morecambe has excellent credentials to become an exemplar location with regard to access and movement. The urban core is large enough to have significant problems that need addressing, relatively indigenous so that results can be monitored and reviewed effectively, yet small enough that within a relatively limited public funding pool, real results can be achieved.

This report continues by drawing out Baseline conclusions before moving on to suggest strategic transport objectives for the District, which aims to provide clarity over the strategy being proposed and the reasons behind it. Chapters 2 to 5 then go on to identify and clarify the range of schemes suggested to cumulatively build towards the overall vision. It is not realistic to suggest that all schemes can be implemented in short succession and it is therefore important that we have considered incremental changes towards the Vision, as opposed to attempting to provide significant change ‘overnight’. Chapter 6 concludes the report and points to the way forward for progression.

1.2

Baseline Findings The Baseline Report provides an extensive current context of the Lancaster District as Faber Maunsell understands it to be. A series of issues and pressures were identified, many of which have been created by either historical or physical constraints.

Analysis of travel patterns in the Lancaster District has identified five key types of movement pattern/groups, namely;

Non-detrimental strategic movements through and beyond Lancaster – primarily using the M6 motorway and West Coast Mainline rail, providing little benefit but having little adverse effect locally; Detrimental strategic through movements – for example, from Southern Scotland/Cumbria or from the south towards Morecambe/Heysham, which need to travel via the centre of Lancaster at present due to limited River Lune crossings, thereby creating significant negative impact upon core areas of the city. The Heysham to M6 Link is clearly a key element in terms of addressing one of these patterns of movement; Movements from the hinterland into Lancaster/Morecambe, both for commuting/business activity and related to its position, providing the concentration of the district’s economic, culture and social activities; Movements from within Lancaster/Morecambe urban core to the City Centre – those who live within close proximity and seek to use the central amenities and are the journeys for which provision of attractive non-car mode opportunities could really make the difference to the overall quality of life; and

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

9

Movements across the City – increasingly over recent decades ‘de-centralising’ developments such as Lancaster Business Park at junction 34 and Lancaster University have created demand across the City Centre, providing no immediate benefit to it, but generating traffic demand detracting from the City Centre’s attractiveness, both environmentally and physically.

No strategic vision for the District would be complete without considering how to address these different movement patterns in tandem with one another.

They are not mutually exclusive and where proposals to address one or more of these patterns can be combined, there is clearly potential for greater overall benefit for the Lancaster District.

Our baseline work identified that the fundamental issue facing the District revolves around the peninsula nature of Heysham and Morecambe and the added pressure that their reliance upon the constrained network of historic Lancaster, places upon movement both between the key centres and between Heysham and Morecambe and the strategic M6 corridor to the east.

As stated, the River Lune and lack of crossing points forms a key constraint on the road network. In a similar way, the canals and railway infrastructure with limited crossing points and physical/visual severance of railway lines present significant barriers to movement. The transition from rail to road has left a legacy of relative isolation in Morecambe and Heysham and this dependence on Lancaster is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Peninsula Effect

As part of the baseline work, several core existing characteristics, largely relating to the city of Lancaster, were concluded:

Congestion, not just limited to peak hours, is focussed on some of the key pinch points and barriers related to the above physical constraints and tends to be relatively localised in terms of affecting the gyratory systems and approaches to it; HGVs and larger vehicles create significant impacts on key corridors within the City Centre, but appear to relate to either through city movements or to outlying industrial areas – for example, traffic from the M6 to Heysham Port is required to use sections of the core central network; Typically, traffic flows appear ‘tidal’ in nature, with AM peaks reversing in the PM peak. This often leads to delays occurring in one direction, with free flowing traffic in the other. This makes effective use of sometimes limited roadspace along key corridors such as the A6 and A683 difficult; Lancaster’s bus provision is focused on a core ‘crescent’ of regular service linking Lancaster University in the south to Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe/Heysham to the west.

Away from this core network, and particularly in the rural hinterland and in the evening and weekend, the level of services deteriorates, limiting modal choice; Internally to the District, rail as a mode of commuting is limited to Lancaster, Morecambe or Carnforth. A major challenge for the city is the step from providing good public transport at key times to ‘exemplar’ amenities that provide real potential for modal shift;

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

10

Walking and cycling appear to be generally accepted modes of transport. Indeed, there are several corridors, such as the Lancaster-Morecambe Greenway and the River Lune Valley, where regular pedestrian and cycling flows are significant; Significant collision and road safety issues appear to be concentrated on several critical junctions in and around the City Centre, partially as a result of the relatively high volumes of activity in such locations, but potentially due to imbalance between vehicular provision and that for other modes; and Off street parking offer may be deemed poor by some at a number of facilities in quality and location in terms of availability. To take a significant step up and achieve major physical project led regeneration will require a significant change in parking strategy.

The baseline work also concluded that the following were key issues to address and resolve:

Lack of connectivity between Lancaster and Morecambe, and between Lancaster and University; Congestion in Lancaster City Centre and on key radial routes; Lack of integration between main leisure, retail, business, and transport hubs in Lancaster City Centre; Lack of quality public transport on offer encourages car trips; Limited River Lune crossing opportunities; Development in the south curtailed by limitations of Galgate crossroads; Insufficient public transport priority in Lancaster City Centre adding to journey time and diluting bus offer; Poor pedestrian facilities and public realm particularly in Morecambe; Lack of/discontinuity of Cycle Routes in the area; Cross-town movement of trips; Poor public transport infrastructure; Need for increased clarity of directional signing; and Increasing linkages to surrounding rural residential communities.

Subsequently, a series of key challenges were concluded being:

1.3

Removal of unnecessary traffic from core areas of the City Centre; Expansion of pedestrianisation and enhancement of public realm; Creating bus priority at areas of key delay to buses and developing new ways of allowing bus based provision to take a step upwards; Undertaking corridor led improvements along main routes; Rationalising off-street parking – creating gateway parking opportunities on key approaches; Improving pedestrian linkages between the City Centre and surrounding residential areas, overcoming severances; Providing a stronger image of the city from core corridors, particularly the West Coast Mainline; Improving signing and way-finding to create a far more legible District; Creating a District that is accessible to all, with strong emphasis on health and mobility; and Promoting a Park & Ride strategy as part of a balanced public transport and parking strategy.

Key Identified Themes The Key Themes identified for the Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy are as follows: To reduce the influence of traffic that simply passes through Lancaster City Centre – the Heysham to M6 Link Road is a major building block towards this aim; To build upon the core existing transport assets of the city rather than create new, such as the west coast mainline and the M6; To intercept long stay and long distance visitors to Lancaster and Morecambe at the edges and offer them attractive alternatives to driving into the centre; To encourage greater use of more sustainable, high occupancy modes for longer trips (e.g. rail, bus, car clubs); To create a walkable and cycleable urban area, making greater use of natural resources such as the River Lune Corridor and Lancaster Canal corridors in particular; and To develop a climate that ‘raises the bar’ in terms of public transport.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

2

Vision for the Lancaster District

11

2.1

Overview This section of the report will present the Vision required for the Lancaster District to address the major transport issues highlighted in the preceding chapter and Baseline Report (January, 2008). It is hoped that this will support regeneration and redevelopment activities across the District and assist in the creation of a more vibrant area to both retain and attract people to live and work. This section also details the strategy that seeks to transform the transport network in order to achieve the Vision.

2.2

The Transport Vision The 15-20 year Transport Vision for the Lancaster District is bold and innovative, given the appropriate level of commitment to the procurement of land and funding, but is realistically achievable. Financing transportation schemes is a notoriously sensitive issue given the large investments needed to bring about the required quantum of changes to the travelling public’s attitude and behaviour, and consequently proposed schemes must adhere to strict guidelines on achieving value for money. It is vital that new transport projects are in keeping with an area rich in heritage, but also forward-looking and that politicians are willing to embrace new ideas and technologies to achieve significant results. Ultimately, the proposed transport solutions need to be efficient, reliable and provide a real alternative to the private car.

In order to deliver these future schemes, it is recognised that current transport funding allocations, based upon the Local Transport Plan process (or any mechanism that succeeds it), will be the most significant funding source for the projects proposed. However, in addition to this, it is envisaged that as the Lancaster and Morecambe area continues to grow economically, that developers contribute to schemes to the benefit of the entire community.

An important acknowledgement in the Transport Vision is that not all the proposed enhancements are feasible in the short-term and many may require significant planning, justification and energy to deliver. That is not to say that these are not vital aspects of a comprehensive transport strategy, but it is indicative of the fact that creating a centre of international renown is a long-term process, in which early success should galvanise rather than hinder the momentum of future development. As an example of this, a number of rapid transit schemes are proposed as part of the transport strategy which typically requires longer timeframes to secure funding and commence construction. In addition, the real economic benefit of these schemes may not be immediately apparent, but instead may require a significant ‘bedding-in’ period before positive results are achieved.

The Vision for Lancaster and Morecambe is a fully integrated one, which does not ignore the existence of the road network and seeks to make the best use of it, whilst promoting sustainable travel to reduce congestion, delay and alleviate environmental concerns. Indeed, the road network is considered of vital importance in order to connect rural and residential areas with the City Centre and District Centres, employment locations, and services and leisure facilities locally. In addition, it must connect the area as a whole to neighbouring districts, and the wider regional and national networks. The strategy will be one that integrates all forms of transport into a network with clearly defined nodes and interchange points and with a goal to make every major location accessible with at worst, one change of service.

A further level of integration will be sought between functional travel and recreation by adding a layer of routes linking centres with leisure destinations. These are of great importance as well as they add to the quality of life of residents and visitors alike and provide a means for residents of the more urban areas of the district to break out and explore the rural hinterland and the natural setting of the area often forgotten in the modern age.

It is important to note that the Vision for the Lancaster and Morecambe area can only be realised if land-use and transportation policies are fully integrated. In this way, just as transportation solutions can prove of great benefit to new development, so can development aid

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

12

in securing future links and networks. This approach will seek to alleviate tension between the two agendas by creating a symbiosis between them in acknowledgement of the inextricable connection between them.

To summarise, the Transport Vision for the Lancaster District consists of the following:

Make better use of the existing road network by looking at routeing strategies, prioritisation of sustainable modes, and a policy of interception; Make better use of existing sustainable links such as the Lancaster-MorecambeHeysham branch rail line by upgrading rolling stock, improving signalling and increasing capacity accordingly; Improve infrastructure for sustainable transport by creating priority corridors, off-street links, rapid transit modes and better integration between all modes; Design schemes to reduce congestion and limit human impact upon the environment and wildlife within the Lancaster District; Improve main interchanges at key nodes on the network, linking these to new development where possible, to increase sustainability; and Incremental change to create a fully sustainable and economically viable Lancaster District with a state-of-the-art transport network and unspoilt by modern problems of congestion and delay.

This chapter is concerned with presenting the Vision from which the ultimate transport strategy for Lancaster and Morecambe will be drawn. With this in mind, the following sections present a number of ideas and benchmarks from around the world, which could be used to remedy/inform the transport issues noted within the Lancaster District. This is not intended to form a comprehensive list of schemes for the study area at this stage, as some may be unsuitable for this situation or too heavily constrained to be practical. Instead, it is designed to provide a flavour of the type of visionary transport solutions operating elsewhere in the world, and a selection of new and innovative schemes imagined specifically for this brief.

2.3

Highways Strategy: Connecting the District The vision for the highway network to serve the Lancaster District is based around reinforcing the hierarchy of routes and ensuring that each route is designed to accommodate the type of traffic appropriate to its status.

This strategy has been developed to reflect current national and local priorities and aims to minimise congestion in and around Lancaster Centre. It is essential that it is considered as part of a wider strategy introducing a wide range of options for delivering better transport outcomes.

This should build on existing strategies to promote alternative modes of transport to the private car, utilising financial penalties such as parking charges to reduce congestion on key networks and reallocating roadspace to sustainable modes afforded by crucial schemes such as the proposed M6 to Heysham Link Road.

Evidence indicates that there is a strong link between the issue of congestion and poor air quality, particularly in Lancaster City Centre. Stationary or slow moving vehicles within the constrained canyonised network will have a negative impact on air quality and consequently residents and city centre employees. Adverse air quality has led to the creation of an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in the City Centre.

One of the key strands of this strategy is ‘making best use of the network’ with an aim to create free-flowing roads through a variety of measures and looking to the future to better link land use planning and transport to reduce the effects of congestion and its associated detrimental economic effects.

In previous years, there has been a leaning towards the provision of major new transport infrastructure as the solution to congestion. However, demand for travel in the UK has outstripped capacity and alternative solutions have to be sought. In addition, since the Traffic Management Act, there has been an increasing focus on better managing the highway network with highway authorities granted greater powers to ensure that the network functions in its intended manner and is better prepared to respond to incidents.

Faber Maunsell

2.3.1

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

13

Core Principles With current policy guidelines and direction to making best use of the existing infrastructure, the following generic table identifies the progressive approach forwarded to target congestion.

Table 2.1: Evolutionary Steps to Targeting Congestion Phase Measure 1 Improvements to existing public transport services (including bus, rail and Demand Responsive Transport services).

2

Introduction of ‘smarter choices’ measures/initiatives, such as travel planning (school/workplace), car share/car clubs, publicity and marketing.

3

Greater management and regulation of the highway network (e.g. Traffic Management Act – stronger parking enforcement, management of highway and utility works etc).

4

Demand management measures (e.g. congestion charging, parking controls).

5

New public transport infrastructure such as Park & Ride and enhanced walking/cycling measures.

6

Low infrastructure intervention - junction capacity improvements incorporating priority for sustainable modes.

Image

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Phase 7

Measure High infrastructure intervention – new roads for use by all modes.

14

Image

The first steps seek to maximise the number of people using public transport by enhancing the existing public transport offer and improving awareness and legibility of the system, thereby reducing the number of vehicles on the District’s roads. Once this has been achieved, measures should be introduced to ensure that the roads, whilst accommodating parking, servicing and maintenance requirements, are more free-flowing for all modes. The next phase requires the introduction of specific demand management measures, with success dependent on the provision of a wider package of public and sustainable transport measures. Should these measures fail to deliver the required reduction in congestion, it will be necessary to consider the implementation of new public transport/infrastructure measures appropriate to the level of intervention required.

In applying this model to Lancaster, currently struggling with congestion, this strategy seeks to provide the principles and guidance to the District to implement appropriate measures to reduce congestion, whilst promoting sustainable modes.

The core principles of the highway vision can be summarised as follows:

2.3.2

Improved opportunity for non-Lancaster trips to bypass Lancaster City Centre primarily through the proposed M6 to Heysham Link.

Strong core vehicular corridors into Lancaster City Centre (i.e. A6, A683) with clear Gateway parking at both the edge of the urban area (via Park & Ride at junctions 33 and 34) and at the point of entry to the City Centre (i.e. Northern and Southern Interceptor Car Parks).

Maintaining viable servicing routes into the heart of the City Centre, while enhancing pedestrian priority and public transport penetration into the City Centre.

Servicing the City Centre As stated, one of the key elements of the vision for the Lancaster District is to ensure that congestion does not hinder the servicing and access requirements of the City Centre and further afield. One way in which this could be achieved is through giving due consideration to the development of a Consolidation Centre so as to avoid the penetration of HGVs into the City Centre itself, which has obvious environmental and trip reducing benefits.

Bristol has been successfully operating a consolidation centre since May 2004 with the scheme reported as achieving its primary objectives of reducing the number of deliveries and cutting the number of delivery vehicles travelling into the city core, improving the environment and providing a quality service to retailers.

Faber Maunsell recommends that a feasibility study is undertaken to determine whether such a centre can satisfactorily meet the business requirements of Lancaster City Centre, and perhaps the wider Morecambe area, including locations such as White Lund Industrial Estate and Morecambe Centre itself.

This study should cover the following aspects:

Location of the Consolidation Centre site - congestion, access routes, development potential, risks, environmental impact and likely capital and operational costs of the site; Operation of the Consolidation Centre - model based on likely arrival patterns for each product type and retailer. Identification of the number of deliveries, size and type of lorries required for the Consolidation Centre operation, service area turnaround times and projected delivery times from the Consolidation Centre to the City Centre; Identification and quantification of retailer benefits; and Identification and quantification of environmental benefits.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

15

The siting of such a centre is crucial to its success and would require the identification of suitable sites at locations accessible to/from the strategic highway network, such as in close proximity to junction 34 of the M6 or indeed, accessed via the proposed M6 to Heysham Link Road. First and foremost, consolidation centres need to be reliable and financially viable for both retailers and developers. Figure 2.1 shows how the Consolidation Centre would work.

Figure 2.1: Consolidation Centre Concept

Benefits to the retailers include:

Increased reliability of supply and increased customer service levels; Reduced delivery costs; Potential 24/7 operation; Space reallocation - decreased storage space, increased retail space and storage point at the Consolidation Centre; Labour cost savings; Waste handling - saved time and corporate responsibility; Reduced frequency of deliveries (i.e. once a week) and can deliver at any time; and Consolidation of partial loads and increased efficiency.

The primary purpose of the Consolidation Centre is to reduce the impact of the retailers/industry on the environment and surrounding highways. In view of a number of major planning applications in the City Centre, such as the Canal Corridor North and Kingsway developments, it could be that proposals for a Consolidation Centre are incorporated into any planning approval. However, it should be noted that conditions should not be too onerous as to deter occupation.

Simultaneously, a proposal to consolidate and develop a City Centre home delivery service could be investigated further. This too, could be developed utilising environmentally friendly vehicles and could capitalise on the advances in the use of the internet as a means of viewing and purchasing goods. Associated reductions in required floor space for retail units, particularly in Lancaster City Centre, could potentially offer up space for more leisure usage/public realm enhancements.

2.3.3

Reinforcing the Road Hierarchy The creation of a strong hierarchy of roads allows for better use of the existing routes, maximising capacity where appropriate and required, whilst restricting access to less suitable routes and minimising rat running to avoid congestion of strategic routes. A strong definition of the hierarchy also promotes better control on developments on key routes, allows for the adoption of design treatments which are in keeping with the road use, promotes safe use by all

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

16

modes, supports adjacent land uses and allows for improvements to the overall amenity and environment.

Whilst some new road building is envisaged to support the revisions to the hierarchy, it is expected to be limited to short sections as and when regeneration dictates. The design guidelines for each level of the hierarchy need to be further developed in conjunction with County and City Council officers to accommodate the uses along each route and to guide the evaluation of future planning applications to ensure that sufficient attention is paid to evaluating all opportunities.

The levels of the hierarchy used in the strategy are as follows:

Strategic Roads; - Regional - External Links; - Local - Internal Links; Local Roads; and Neighbourhood streets incorporating mixed-use streets, avenues, boulevards, mews, lanes, and squares.

Figure 2.2 highlights the envisaged road hierarchy in Lancaster District.

The following sections provide further details of the development of the hierarchy and our recommended approach.

Regional Strategic Roads (External Links) The completion of the M6-Heysham Link will have a significant impact on the road hierarchy and subsequent routeing of traffic through the Lancaster District. Of real significance is the effect the road will have on the routeing of traffic from the M6 to the Heysham/Morecambe peninsula. All such ‘Detrimental Strategic through traffic’ will be routed via the new Heysham Link Road, thereby relieving the Lancaster City Centre gyratory systems.

From a regional perspective and for the successful regeneration of Morecambe and Heysham in particular, strong links to the wider transport network are essential to attract new investment and generate jobs to benefit the local community. The future strategy needs to reinforce the hierarchy to ensure that traffic, and especially HGVs, are encouraged to use appropriate routes for their ultimate destination (e.g. Heysham to M6 Link Road/A683 Lancaster-Morecambe Bypass for Heysham, A6 Lancaster Road/Scotforth Road for Lancaster South). This should be achieved through a combination of signing and appropriate route treatments to ensure that traffic is attracted to the correct route. It is essential to ensure that the strategic routes run freely and that existing congestion hot spots are treated.

The A683 between Junction 34 of the M6 and Lancaster City Centre and the A6 between Junction 33 of the M6 and Lancaster City Centre also serve as key radial routes and are thus important public transport corridors. The strategy for these routes (to be discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters) includes the utilisation of a Park & Ride strategy to reduce the volume traffic on such routes.

Currently, the A6 between Lancaster University and Lancaster City Centre forms part of the core Quality Bus Corridor ‘crescent’ of service between Lancaster University and Morecambe.

However, owing in part to limited road capacity, there are limited priority measures in place to encourage drivers to switch modes. In order to ensure the success of routes, specific measures are required to facilitate the priority of public transport, particularly on the approaches to and through Lancaster City Centre. Buses are a relatively space efficient means of transport, contributing towards the aim of making best use of the available highway space, and encouraging greater use of public transport.

Key requirements of this type of road are identified below:

Clear legible strategic signing; Strong management of parking and servicing restrictions; High quality, frequent public transport; High quality bus stops provided at regular intervals; Cycle lanes could be introduced space permitting – alternative parallel routes should be considered;

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

17

Central reserves could be part planted/grassed to help green the environment; and Tree planting, including within the central reserve, enhancing the sense of enclosure and attractiveness.

Local Strategic Roads (Internal Links) Local strategic roads serve a very important function in the Lancaster District. Routes including the A589, A5105 and the A6 (Gyratory/City Centre to Carnforth) are important in that they provide key routes for residents to access leisure and employment opportunities.

These routes incorporate Bus Priority Measures where feasible and are required to be freemoving, with priority for sustainable transport measures.

The following cross-section example illustrates treatment for these routes.

Figure 2.3: Local Strategic Roads (Indicative)

Any modification must satisfy the highway authority in respect to design materials and appropriateness within the highway boundary.

Appropriate features for a local strategic road include:

Formal pedestrian and/or cycle crossing points on key desire lines; Bus lanes where highway width is available; On-street parking and loading bays within Local Centres to serve businesses; On-street cycle provision as appropriate; Traffic management to manage vehicle speeds; Bus gating through Local Centres; and Quality pedestrian environment including standard width footways or wider, dropped crossings or side road entry treatments.

Local Roads Local roads form key routes in the network allowing the local community and businesses to access the strategic network, access key development sites, provide linkages to the District Centres, schools, leisure facilities and employment.

These routes should be designed to discourage through traffic that should be using the strategic road network by using parking, appropriate traffic management measures, kerb build outs and entry treatments to manage speed.

Appropriate features for local roads include:

Formal pedestrian and/or cycle crossing points on key desire lines; On-street parking and loading bays to serve local businesses and existing residential properties without on-street parking; Traffic management to moderate vehicle speeds based around kerb build outs; Gateway features to discourage traffic entering these roads from the strategic network except for access; Quality pedestrian environment including standard width footways or wider, dropped crossings or side road entry treatments.

New development fronting onto the street provided with car parking to the rear where possible; High quality pedestrian public realm (e.g. surface treatment, street furniture) required to complement Local Centres;

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Verges could be part planted/grassed to help green the environment outside of Local Centres; Tree planting enhances the streets sense of enclosure and attractiveness; Designated cycle lanes.

Bus stops provided at regular intervals - additional footway space may be required to compensate for bus stops; and Residential front gardens help green the environment, provide a buffer to the road and provide a private domain for interaction with passers-by.

The following cross-section example illustrates treatment for these routes.

Figure 2.4: Local Roads (Indicative)

Any modification must satisfy the highway authority in respect to design materials and appropriateness within the highway boundary.

Neighbourhood Streets The neighbourhood streets form the spine routes within the local areas or neighbourhoods.

Although each street should be designed to accommodate the appropriate level of traffic, whether residential or commercial, it is envisaged that these routes should either be trafficcalmed, using horizontal features or where new build, incorporated into the design.

These routes should provide a single lane in each direction, accommodate on-street parking and loading, be suitable for cyclists to cycle safely with traffic and ideally have a speed limit of 20mph. It is recommended that access to these streets from the more strategic routes should be via a gateway/entry treatment to discourage use by strategic traffic trying to avoid busier routes. Whilst these criteria are desirable, any design must take heed of the requirements for the introduction of 20mph zones set by Lancashire County Council as highway authority.

The following cross-section example illustrates treatment for these routes.

Figure 2.5: Neighbourhood Streets (Indicative)

Any modification must satisfy the highway authority in respect to design materials and appropriateness within the highway boundary.

The key features of a neighbourhood street should include:

Sufficient carriageway width to allow for two-way traffic; New development fronting onto the street provided with car parking to the rear where possible;

18

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

19

On-street parking in formal bays provided to encourage custom to Local Centre uses and for existing housing fronting onto the street with no other provision; High quality pedestrian public realm (e.g. surface treatment, street furniture) required to complement Local Centres; Pedestrian crossing points at regular intervals within Local Centres and at key junctions; Wider footway widths allows shops, cafes etc to ‘spill out’ 1into (e.g. tables and chairs, grocery goods) and help activate the street without inconveniencing pedestrians; Verges could be part planted/grassed to help green the environment away from of retail areas; Tree planting enhances the streets sense of enclosure and attractiveness; Cycle lanes could be introduced outside of Local Centres space permitting; Bus stops provided at regular intervals - additional footway space may be required to compensate for bus stops; and Residential front gardens help green the environment, provide a buffer to the road and provide a private domain for interaction with passers-by.

It is important that roads in residential developments have a design that fits around the desired form of the residential layout and does not dominate it. They should be attractive for use by pedestrians and cyclists and not just focused on provision for vehicular traffic. In this way, new developments will be able to contribute positively to sustainability objectives, through creating an environment that fosters non-polluting travel modes, especially for local journeys.

The development of a hierarchy of roads is also important so that traffic can travel on appropriate roads, and so that the creation of attractive routes through residential areas for non-access traffic is avoided.

The design of residential roads should influence users to respond to their surroundings. Pedestrians and cyclists should feel safe, and drivers should be aware that they are in a residential area and therefore travel at an appropriate speed.

Informal play areas add to the ambience of the area

Access roads form the major part of residential road networks and provide direct access to individual dwellings and parking spaces. The design speeds for all residential roads should be 20mph. Residential roads serve between 50 and 300 units.

Minor residential access roads give direct frontage Home Zones/Shared Surface - places access to dwellings and are usually a cul-defor people, not just cars sac/courtyard development. The design speed of minor residential access roads should be 10mph or less to discourage higher speeds and promote pedestrian-friendly environment. Ideally these minor roads should be shared surface, built around the principles of homes zones, such as the example of Poulton in Morecambe, and create the feeling of a community space.

The Department for Transport has defined a home zone as: "‌residential streets in which the road space is shared between drivers of motor vehicles and other road users, with the wider needs of residents (including people who walk and cycle, and children) in mind. The aim is to change the way that streets are used and to improve the quality of life in residential streets by making them places for people, not just traffic. Changes to the layout of the street should emphasise this change of use, so that motorists perceive that they should give informal priority to other road users."

It is important that for shared surface streets, the principles of homes zones are incorporated into the design. The design needs to encourage an attractive and safe on-street residential environment, and should be designed as a valued public space and not just a place for 1

Subject to the appropriate agreement/licence with the highway/local authority

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

20

movement. This treatment should not be seen as anti-car but as a way of reducing the dominance of both moving and parked cars.

Car speeds should be reduced to a level where the pedestrian has priority through appropriate design. This might include suitably located landscaping or street furniture, but not the more traditional traffic calming measures. The area should include a 'gateway' entrance to signify the change in the nature of the space.

The approach to design, is not geared around collision prevention, although this is important, but on encouraging a variety of uses including play, movement by all modes, social interaction and community activities. Informal play areas should be incorporated into the design, ideally protected from moving cars by street furniture such as bollards or informal seating, as shown in the figures above.

It is not proposed that new streets should be cluttered with signage but that movement in these areas should be constrained by the design elements. For example, the following ideals should be observed:

The design should discourage inappropriate vehicle speeds; Traffic flows should be low serving ideally no more than 25 units (25 houses or up to 50 flats); They should consist of shared surfaces, indirect traffic routes, areas of planting, and features, such as seating, to encourage the use of the street; Gateways should mark the limits of the area and inform drivers they should give informal priority to other street users; A sense of community should be fostered and an increase in natural surveillance should occur; A greater diversity of activity and use of the street by residents should be encouraged, including children's play; and Residents should be encouraged to walk and cycle within their local area and to nearby destinations.

Shared surface roads have the highway space shared by all users. The design of shared surface roads should have particular regard to the mobility impaired.

Higher density developments on a shared surface road are an opportunity to create attractive and unique dwellings. These would usually be in a housing square or mews court layout; living spaces are arranged around a central space, which allows a clear area for parking and turning.

These may be particularly appropriate in an urban context, or for infill sites off established roads where standard house types are unlikely to be suitable. They are often developed where special attention to privacy, parking and dwelling curtilages is required due to the proximity to existing dwellings.

It is advocated that guidelines for the design of new roads are provided to ensure that the aspirations for local accessibility by sustainable modes can be achieved. Opportunities for improving the streetscape on existing roads should be examined to reinforce the nature of the streets and discourage rat running. Where necessary, consideration should be given to entry treatments or gateways.

Summary In summary, a clear identification of the network hierarchy should start the process of making better use of the existing highway network to accommodate cars, public transport, servicing, cyclists and pedestrians, whilst controlling the types of developments permitted on each level of the hierarchy.

2.4

Park & Ride A large component of the integrated vision for the Lancaster District revolves around the concept of Park & Ride. This will be explored in greater detail later in this document, but an innovation worth mentioning as part of the vision is the concept of ‘New Generation’ Park & Ride. In short, this involves an integrated approach for large out-of-town Park & Ride sites in which high quality parking facilities are combined with integrated parking and public transport ticketing facilities to provide a quality bus, rail, or rapid transit based Park & Ride experience. In addition to this, each ‘New Generation site’ is envisaged to incorporate a number of the

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

21

following: cycle hire and showering facilities to promote ‘Park & Cycle’; delivery collection points for non car-using shoppers accessing town or City Centre retail centres to collect their purchases; and car hiring schemes to enable those without a car/or those in the future who may choose to dispense with a private car, to access rural areas or places outside of the district in a new innovation entitled ‘Ride & Drive’.

The purpose of these collectivised facilities is primarily to provide an alternative to driving into the City Centre, reducing congestion and improving the environment whilst still leaving those living in rural areas with a viable option to access the amenities. In effect, the combined nature of the schemes provides a low cost multi-purpose solution to a number of issues including providing cars to those without day-to-day access to them in order to improve their connectivity with more remote areas that are poorly served by public transport.

2.5

The Taxi Economy – Transition to Public/Sustainable Transport Over a quarter of households in the Lancaster District have no access to a car (Census, 2001), the taxi economy in parts of Lancaster and Morecambe is typically very strong. Evidence of this exists in the number of local taxi firms in this area.

There are several key reasons for high use of such amenities, with such services often providing a critical link to various user groups;

Firstly, limited affluence and sphere of travel/experience often means that the fixed costs of car operation (i.e. tax, purchase, insurance) vastly outweigh the cost of using taxis on a regular basis. For example, use of a taxi 5 times a week at £3/ride equals £750/year. This is far cheaper than fixed and variable (primarily fuel and maintenance) costs of owning and operating a car. Only when families become more complex, in terms of their routines and demands, and affluence grows does consideration of conversion from taxi to car economy become a consideration. Many people with limited incomes rarely venture beyond their immediate area, and if they do, in somewhere like Lancaster and Morecambe they are more likely to travel to the hub by taxi (i.e. Lancaster) then continue the longer journey by another mode.

Secondly, typical journey distances tend to be short, enabling regular use of a taxi facility.

Combined with typically poor off-peak bus services focussed on core corridors, taxis enable users who would otherwise be isolated to venture out regularly and out of peak times.

Thirdly, without a car, many trips that car users take for granted are often more difficult. The local shop, by nature, cannot offer the same economies of scale as the larger superstores and it is often advantageous, both financially, socially and from a ‘status’ perspective to be able to venture further for greater choice, by taxi.

Lastly, but by no means exhaustively, other factors such as the ability to learn to drive or garage a car safely (particularly in certain poorly planned estates with little natural surveillance) mean that the decision to move to car is often harder.

As change occurs in some of the more deprived areas of the district, both in relation to business and residences, it could be anticipated that the taxi economy should be encouraged to change with it. This will partly occur by market forces. Perhaps the key two challenges for the Lancaster District in respect of taxis over forthcoming years are:

To ensure that the taxi economy changes for all, rather than just more affluent users; and To encourage conversion from taxi use with affluence to be to public transport rather than to using a car regularly.

The proposals for a ‘matrix’ of public transport start to reduce areas where taxi use is needed for both legs of a journey. For example, to a supermarket, one direction would be viable by bus, the other, with shopping more likely to be maintained by taxi. This has the advantage of reducing isolation for many, making that trip more affordable, but also assisting in avoiding the need to purchase a vehicle.

Whilst it could be argued that a more accessible and attractive public transport network may attract trips away from the taxi economy it could equally be argued that that economy, through economic upgrading of the area overall, will continue to benefit through increased trip-making propensity, increased ability to pay for a better product and innovation in service offered.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

22

2.6

Public Transport Strategy

2.6.1

Principles of the Vision Owing to natural and historical constraints of the area, particularly in the City Centre, a mixture of rail, rapid transit and bus-based solutions will be needed to create a fully integrated public transport opportunity. This mix would facilitate a hierarchy of public transport choice, based upon user need with rail providing fast and frequent access to the wider national rail network, rapid transit providing efficient linkage between the main centres within the Lancaster District, and bus provision serving the widest possible area, filling the gaps in the mass transit system, and acting as feeder services for the local centres and wider transport network. Bus provision also has a key role in providing sustainable transport to the more rural areas via Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) and other key initiatives.

When frequencies and journey times are maximised and minimised respectively, the key issue becomes accessibility to and reliability of services, and this requires infrastructure to achieve this. The key difference from the current offer in the Lancaster District is that the assurance of guaranteed journey time on public transport begins to be achievable, leading to confidence in the system. Clearly the more reliable, convenient and frequent services become, the more attractive they are to users and operators alike.

It is suggested that the ultimate aim should be to create a reliable public transport network with the highest frequencies and most effective interchange possible. This would need operator support (possibly building on the existing Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) approach) and possibly financed from local initiatives, in addition to LTP and other standard funding approaches. The key issue is how to build upon the existing offer and the identification of priorities for change.

If the strategic network can be improved then provision of local and user specific services can become much more focused and deliverable.

2.6.2

The Integrated Approach The success of the public transport offer for the Lancaster District relies on certain key criteria being fulfilled. These include the following:

Fast and frequent services along key corridors throughout the day and including stronger evening and weekend provision; Evenly spaced stops, with appropriate walking distances to them. Generally speaking, the recommended maximum walking distance is 400m to a bus stop and 800m to a stop for a fixed track mode; High quality interchange between modes, preferably with other amenities present to aid security and safety; and Ease of legibility and use, including information and ticketing.

Whilst cost of use is a key parameter at present, increased economic success of the area would reduce the influence of this in the decision making process.

Clearly, certain elements of the package are easier to realise than others. For example, the delivery of enhanced frequency is dependent on the availability/provision of vehicle resource and generation of sufficient demand, relatively simple from a practical perspective (although clearly an economic case is required). Creation of integrated ticketing between modes is however more difficult to achieve in the current operational and practical arena given the deregulated bus system and privatised rail network. The delivery of QBP’s between the Local Authority and Public Transport operators is therefore a minimum requirement in delivering this facility and the expected effect of the recent Local Transport Bill will have a key effect on the realisation of these. Provision of effective information is likely to be one of the most straightforward methods of changing perceptions and understanding but relies upon the basic product meeting expectations.

2.6.3

Key Schemes There are several key corridor routes within the structured integrated transport network proposed. A selection of potential schemes have been identified as short-term (<5years); medium-term (5–15years) and long-term (10-20years). These are further labelled in terms of cost (Low = 0 - £1million, Medium = £1million - £5million, High = >£5million) and proposed

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

23

frequency (Low = >hourly, Medium = hourly – 15mins, High = <15minutes). The schemes are defined as follows: Table 2.2: Potential Public Transport Schemes Route Mode Key Change from Current Lancaster Lancaster University Preston Bare Lane to Morecambe and Heysham

Cost

Potential Frequency

Potential Timescale

Rail

Construct Rail Station near High Lancaster University on Oubeck Sidings

Medium

Long

Rail

Signalling improvements to upgrade capacity between Lancaster and Morecambe /Heysham Construct West Coast Mainline link chord north of Carnforth Construct rapid transit link between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Construct rapid transit link between Lancaster University Construct rapid transit link between Lancaster and proposed M6 Junction 34 Park & Ride.

Introduce ‘Red Route’ on A6/A683/A589 Corridors between Lancaster Morecambe, Heysham and Lancaster University.

Introduce frequent, free/cheap, City Centre circular service serving transport nodes and key city draws Create bus terminus facility in Heysham integrated with rail station and ferry port.

Medium

Medium

Medium

High

Low

Long

High

High

Medium

High

High

Medium

High

High

Medium

Low

High

Short

Low

High

Short

Medium

High

Short

Carnforth to Lake Rail District Morecambe to Lancaster

Rapid Transit

Lancaster to Lancaster University Lancaster to Junction 34, M6

Rapid Transit

Lancaster to Morecambe and Heysham

Bus

Lancaster ‘Metro Shuttle’

Bus

Heysham Bus Routes

Bus

Rapid Transit

2.7

Rapid Transit Concepts In the strategy above, no definitive modes have been firmly identified as the preferred rapid transit or ‘Red Route’ bus systems. This has been left purposely vague due to the range of options for this concept, each with their own set of advantages and disadvantages relative to each other. The section below details a few of the available modes and discusses the benefits and disbenefits associated with each.

2.7.1

The ‘Superbus Concept’ The bus traditionally has a poor and unattractive image, seen as a last resort option by many.

Recent changes in technology and design have been significant, and combined with a more commercial view of branding and marketing, have been proven elsewhere to make a difference in patronage (for example Leeds ‘FTR’ and SuperRoute 66 in Ipswich combined marketing, infrastructure, vehicles and operational issues to create a new product).

Owing to rapid changes in technology, new forms of transport have begun to emerge in the UK, often referred to as ‘Intermediate modes’. These fit between guided bus and tram and have followed European examples such as the Phileas Guided Bus Rapid Transit System operating

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

in Eindhoven, Netherlands and a similar scheme in Nantes, France as shown in the following images:

‘Phileas’ Bus Rapid Transit in Eindhoven and Bus Way in Nantes

The major Public Transport operators in the UK are becoming increasingly interested in these modes, particularly as the key light rail schemes have already been implemented or planned and policy has changed to fully explore low cost alternatives. The concept proposed in this area recognises that over time, the system will respond to new developments, patronage will grow. In this respect, the quality of infrastructure and vehicles needs to be raised over and above the level associated with Quality Bus Corridors (QBCs).

Streetcar Images

In essence, the Superbus concept aims to develop and expand over time:

Substantial infrastructure changes, including significant segregation over time and can be linked to new development; Changes in vehicle provision, towards intermediate modes over time; ‘Tram-style’ stops along the route, acting as focal points and sending a clear message of intent; Continuous marketing and re-branding required to maintain patronage and ‘sell’ the route to new user groups; and Joined-up ticketing and information initiatives between modes.

The next stage of development of such a corridor would be to better define route alignments, options and link this more closely with patronage, revenue and therefore phasing options. It is important to consider the required step change needed and difference between the standard bus offer and the target of a ‘Superbus’ concept.

In recent years, buses have evolved substantially from the traditional single or double deck vehicles that have traditionally provided their recognised and often poor image. Changes in both legislation and customer (both operator and passenger) demand over recent years have led to a whole new range of vehicles emerging across Europe and beyond. At the same time, there is greater recognition in the industry that the bus is a highly flexible means of transport if given the correct support in terms of infrastructure and marketing. Facilities such as guided busways, which have been around for a number of years in locations such as Runcorn,

24

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

25

Merseyside, and low floor vehicles have been part of such changes and have evolved over time.

As discussed, vehicle design, specification and capability has evolved substantially to include a whole range of bus ‘derivatives’ ranging from simple articulation of vehicles (as seen in Manchester on Route 135 from the City Centre to Bury) up to fully guided rubber-tyred vehicles that look like a tram and uses various types of wire, optical or physical guidance. This set of vehicles, between ‘standard’ buses and light rail have typically been referred to as ‘Intermediate modes’.

The bus service has increasingly been considered as a product, with changes in funding and increased recognition that you can develop effective and attractive services that fit ‘between bus and tram’ to provide a better product in a cost effective manner at appropriate scale.

The proposal for the ‘Superbus’ links as part of the Lancaster & Morecambe Vision public transport offer is designed to work towards the provision of an ‘Intermediate Mode’, recognising that the core routes in the area could eventually develop to be far more high profile than a standard bus route. Owing to the relative size of the urban population, investment in light rail is unlikely to be justified. The beauty of such a concept is that the product can evolve over time, and unlike a tram system, is not an ‘all or nothing’ investment. In an area such as Lancaster and Morecambe, where change is occurring rapidly, the ability to be flexible to link to new developments, yet provide increased permanency of route over that of the standard bus, makes development of such a concept appropriate.

Table 2.3 below highlights the potential steps along the ladder from simple bus route to full intermediate mode corridor. Clearly, not all bus services merit moving through this evolutionary process, with some services appropriate as operating in the current form. At present, the majority of bus routes within the District are at Stage 1, apart from the defined QBC between Morecambe to Lancaster University, via Lancaster City Centre. The aim is to shift routes along both axes towards the right of the table, over time and in line with opportunity, which can happen either quickly or gradually as appropriate to the land use and demand environment arising.

Table 2.3: Typical Evolution of Bus Services to Full Intermediate Mode Evolutionary Stage (Time>>>>) 1. Initial Bus 2. Prioritised Service Corridor Stops

Simple shelter and flag, perhaps a lay-by

Shelter and flag, with efforts to increase mobility access and reduce parking conflicts

Branding/ Marketing

Virtually none, uses whatever bus available.

Initial efforts via vehicle, leaflets and stops

Vehicles

Standard bus

Low-floor, high quality vehicles

3. High Profile Part Upgraded Route Some tram-style stops at key locations. Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) throughout.

Some uniformity and some dedicated facilities Corridor-long treatment with high degree of co-ordination Perhaps articulated and dedicated to route. Some special features

4. Full Intermediate Mode offer Tram-style, with high profile interchanges and hubs. Branded throughout and often dedicated to service

Sold to become a product in the same way as ‘Metrolink’ in Manchester Tram-like, articulated, sleek, low-floor with high capacity and good quality interior

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Evolutionary Stage (Time>>>>) 1. Initial Bus 2. Prioritised Service Corridor

26

3. High Profile Part Upgraded Route Route-long priority provided

Level of Priority in Road Hierarchy

None

Some segregation, simple signal priority

Propulsion type

Diesel Engine

Diesel Engine

Clean fuel vehicles, some hybrid fuels

Links to adjacent land uses

Generally poor

Profile

Very localised

Some funding from developers and links to major sites City-wide

Typical User Groups and Patronage needed Degree of Segregation

Local and generally low choice. Low patronage needs

Start to get improved footway links/crossing improvements Sector/Corridor Long Low to medium patronage needs

None

Simple, difficult to enforce, not continuous

Simple with sections of segregation, but almost continuous priority

Typical Upgrades in Patronage Levels that can occur Links to other routes/ systems

Neutral and declining

5 – 10%

10-20%

Low, only at key town centres

Poor, generally only at key centres and core sections of routes

Examples

Routes throughout most UK cities

Route 135 Manchester SMART routes, Merseyside London Bus Priority Network and typical across UK

Some, but generally seen as isolated and ‘above other’ routes Super-route 66 Ipswich, Leeds, Guided Bus Curitiba, Brazil

Medium Patronage needs

4. Full Intermediate Mode offer High priority, almost tram-like, with strong branding and local presence Often electric via overhead or with very clean fuel vehicles Integrated within some major sites, intrinsically linked Regional or greater All groups, appeals to all.

Medium to high patronage needs Large sections of segregated or dedicated route particularly in core sections.

Often through major sites with high profile features.

Significant, often linked to changes in land use, perhaps 50% Integral element of the route, both physically, through ticketing and marketing Typically in modern and new/regenerated areas e.g. Caen, France; Reims, France; Rome, Italy and Leigh – Manchester Guided Busway

The challenge in the Lancaster District is to take routes in columns to the left and to move them over time, towards the right, with particular emphasis on upgrading each of the items in the far left hand column in a balanced manner.

2.7.2

The Tram-Train Concept The performance of the suburban railway line between Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham is constrained by capacity limitations due to antiquated signalling at Bare Lane, single-tracked sections, and the lack of available rail paths on the busy the West Coast Main Line. The tram-

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

27

train concept, which has been successful in European cities such as Karlsruhe in Germany, and Paris, uses light rail vehicles that can operate on both heavy rail lines and street tram tracks.

Advantages include higher service frequencies, release of rail capacity at larger stations, greater penetration of City Centres, higher patronage and lower car use.

The creation of a tram-train operation between Lancaster and Morecambe would use new segregated track for the majority of the route between the two centres adapting the Greenway alignment to accommodate a rapid transit system as well as cycling and pedestrians, and with possible street-running sections in Lancaster City Centre, but would also have the ability to use existing rail track to access Morecambe station and to travel between Morecambe and Heysham. This system would also be versatile enough for the creation of a direct route between Lancaster and Heysham via the Greenway, and the existing Heysham rail line via a new rail chord linking the two. This also presents the opportunity for a new quality interchange at some point before the line split.

Tramâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Train Concept

New development in the area could generate a significant market for this line, although it would be imperative that journey times are equivalent to or below that of the private car, as the usage of urban rail and metro systems is highly sensitive to their relative journey times compared with those possible by car. It should be noted that to secure funding from the DfT, a minimum benefit to cost ratio of above 1.5 is normally required.

The concept is soon to be being trialled in South Yorkshire between Huddersfield and Sheffield by the DfT in conjunction with Northern Rail, to ad dress various technical and operational issues surrounding the operation of tram-train in the UK. This will include the crashworthiness of the vehicles and will consider how this can be compensated for through adopting new signalling techniques.

2.7.3

Elevated Rapid Transit As a more innovative solution to the need for a rapid transit link between Lancaster and Morecambe, the idea of elevated rapid transit systems has been suggested. These modes have the obvious advantage over ground based systems such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail (LRT) in that they are unaffected by constraints on the ground (for example congestion in Lancaster City Centre and pedestrian demands). In this case, this mode could use the alignment of the Lancaster - Morecambe Greenway without any implications for current users of the route (i.e. cyclists and pedestrians).

The particular modes put forward for a Lancaster to Morecambe rapid transit include elevated monorail and hanging railway systems (see concepts below), both of which exist elsewhere in the world, although they are more common in Asia and the Far East than in Europe at present.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

28

Elevated Rapid Transit Concept

The elevated mode is fast and clean being predominantly electrically powered. It does not suffer from traffic congestion as LRT or BRT modes, providing direct penetration into town or City Centres. The major disadvantage of these systems is the extremely high cost of construction requiring new elevated track and signalling infrastructure, elevated stations and platforms, and new high-technology vehicles, which could be driverless depending on the level of automation available. There could also be an issue of privacy in urban areas where the system is elevated.

These approaches are considered further in later chapters of this report.

2.8

Improved Interchange/Station Development Zones The improved transport system would be based around strong interchange locations between modes of transport. This concept introduces the opportunity to identify Interchange or Station Development Zones focusing on high quality safe and secure, attractive nodes where two or more modes of transport intersect and where associated development should be encouraged.

The key principles of such should be:

To increase linkage between services; To improve profile; To improve accessibility from the immediate area; To encourage sustainable development around stations; and To upgrade actual and perception of personal security.

Potential sites for these zones include:

The current White Lund Industrial Estate in between Lancaster and Morecambe; The intersection of major roads at the junction between the A6 and new M6 to Heysham Link Road; M6 motorway Junctions 33 and 34, where there is good potential to create interchange with Park & Ride especially in light of the proposed New Link Road linked to Junction 34; and Existing rail stations such as Bare Lane, which are currently quite basic in terms of passenger and interchange facilities and do not influence the surrounding areas.

The key elements of a high quality nodal point include the following:

2.9

High quality public realm (e.g. paving, street furniture, planting) complements high usage area; High density mixed use development around and associated with the interchange provides natural surveillance as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour, provides complementary amenity and increases the catchment population of the interchange; Bus service well linked to rail and or rapid transit service; Lifts providing wheelchair access to the elevated platform; Secure cycle parking provided in a location with natural surveillance; and A new landmark to identify/locate the interchange.

Integrated Ticketing Another crucial element to the transport vision for the Lancaster District, and one with global examples, is the integration of ticketing across the district. A key requirement of this vision is

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

29

that public transport ticketing should be integrated allowing multi-modal travel on local transport regardless of operating company considerations which are irrelevant to the travelling public.

However, the envisaged integration does not end there and means should be explored to combine ticketing across a number of different disciplines around the district to create a form of pre-pay system for all daily expenses. In practice, this could be extended to include public transport, car parking, car and cycle hire, admission to tourist attractions, admission to sports and other leisure facilities, taxi fares, night clubs and other leisure amenities.

Limited examples of this system may be observed in the Oyster scheme in and around London in which transport is paid for using a card which can be topped up in a similar way to ‘pay as you go’ mobile phones. Schemes in Singapore go further than this with their SmartCard technology integrating public transport fares and congestion charging. However it is felt that these measures do not extend far enough for a truly visionary transport system unhindered by delay or fare collection. In practice, this level of integration is potentially only viable for industries over which the local authority exerts some control, although in terms of transport the new Local Transport Bill is designed to smooth the way for precisely these types of agreement.

Other schemes for potential application to the Lancaster District include First Group’s Bus Miles Loyalty Scheme in Bradford, where users accumulate miles to be redeemed against future bus trips. This is a good way of rewarding regular users for sustainable travel practices. Owing to the tourism potential in the Lancaster District, another scheme, perhaps for longer term consideration is the Basle Mobility Card. All persons staying overnight in the city are entitled to the card, giving free tram and bus travel throughout the city, thereby reducing the need to bring the car in the first place and the impact of the private car during the trip. Clearly, this will require the provision of an improved public transport offer and the bringing together of a number of organisations, including public transport authorities and tourism bodies in order to make this work.

2.10

Combined-Use Transport In addition to the key transport links and modes identified above, this vision for the Lancaster District also makes reference to the potential for combined-use transport vehicles. These are designed to effectively integrate public transport with other key road user activities such as freight traffic or grocery delivery with the aim of reducing the number of road-borne trips to relieve congestion and preserve the environment. These vehicles have a variety of potential applications within the district ranging from simple Post Buses operating on a ‘dial-a-ride’ basis in more rural areas, to fully fledged light rail services with dedicated space for light freight loads.

A Royal Mail Post Bus in Cornwall and a Dutch Freight Tram

Increased shopping delivery is also an important element within the future vision of the District, in recognition of the large number of car trips that retail, and in particular grocery shopping currently accounts for. An argument often used in favour of the private car is that, other than taxi hire, it is the only feasible option to fetch large quantities of groceries home. Within the vision for the Lancaster District, it is proposed that a higher percentage of shopping should be encouraged via the internet, with purchases being delivered either to homes, safe storage locations, or to localised collection centres situated outside of the main centres and possibly incorporated into the function of future Park & Ride sites. This in itself is intended to reduce congestion in the urban core by creating linked trips, however it is further envisaged that the

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

30

delivery vehicles could provide some form of passenger transport similar to Post Buses, connecting rural communities in areas not well served by scheduled public transport.

As a further innovation and to satisfy the increase in the number of people working from home, Lancaster could lead the way in providing free Wireless Internet across the district further connecting rural communities to complement proposed combined-use and DRT extensions.

Whilst these ideas would help to reduce the number of car trips, the impact would be minimal in comparison to other measures identified in the strategy.

2.11

Cycling Strategy Encouraging greater use of ‘green modes’ such as cycling is a central component of the vision for the Lancaster District, building on recent successful initiatives. The proportion of residents cycling in the Lancaster District currently exceeds that of the national average, but the potential for modal shift is still considerable, due in part to the high proportion of population that live within a 5km radius of City Centre, well established off-road routes and Lancaster’s ‘Cycle Demonstration Town’ (CDT) status.

The potential could be developed by the provision of enhanced cycle infrastructure in the City Centre and elsewhere in the district to make this mode choice realistic. This includes the provision of showering and secure cycle storage facilities at work and other key destinations, availability of space for cycles on buses, trains, and other intermediate modes, safe and secure cycleways with CCTV and good levels of maintenance, and cycle specific infrastructure on the District’s highways.

Modal shift towards cycling can also be achieved through investment in initiatives such as publicity measures, cycle training and travel planning. The Sustrans Behavioural Change (personalised travel planning) work aims to encourage this potentially large market of people who would be willing to swap their cars for a proportion of journeys in favour of the bicycle by providing information on the benefits of cycling and potential routes to employment locations and services. There is plenty of opportunity to continue the momentum of recent and current initiatives supported by the highway authority and the City Council.

By informing the public of the benefits of cycling, and encouraging more businesses and organisations to produce Travel Plans, which include measures to promote cycling, the numbers of those cycling in the district could be increased significantly.

Examples of Cycle Infrastructure

As discussed in the Baseline Report (January, 2008) the profile of cycling in the District has increased with the successful application and subsequent funding received from the Cycling Demonstration Town (CDT) initiative. Indeed, evidence of success is referenced in ‘A Sustainable Future for Cycling’ (DfT, January 2008), which indicates that the number of parked cycles counted in the city has increased by 48%. Therefore, the strategy for cycling is to maintain the momentum offered by the investment in infrastructure and facilities across the District.

A key innovation that has been trialled elsewhere in Europe is the provision of bicycle racks on buses and trams so as not to reduce the internal capacity of the vehicle. These rails allow cycles to be easily stored and removed by the passenger so as not to delay the vehicles unduly. Other potential district-wide schemes include encouraging the pooling of work-based bicycles for lease or sharing clubs, and subsidised incentives to encourage non-car use by providing discounts at shopping/leisure centres or bonuses to employee remuneration.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Bus mounted bicycle racks in Washington DC 2.11.1

31

Ready, steady, go for cycling

Missing Links Figure 2.6 shows a plan of the proposed District-wide cycling strategy for Lancaster and identifies a number of missing links.

This study has provided an opportunity to identify missing links in the cycle network to ensure that routes are not, wherever possible, discontinuous. For example, the Port of Heysham and surrounding industrial estates provide employment for many residents throughout the District. Currently, there is a lack of direct links to the area from central Lancaster. The provision of a high quality east-west cycle route between the Port of Heysham and Lancaster would connect the area to the National Cycle Network (NCN), and encourage cycling as a means of transport for commuters.

Cycling potential could be particularly developed by the provision of enhanced cycle infrastructure in the City Centre. In a recent study prepared by Mayer Brown, a number of proposals were forwarded to provide improved north-south, east-west links and orbital routes in the vicinity of the City Centre. These are essential to improving cycle permeability.

Any works associated with a revision of the Lancaster gyratory offers the opportunity to re-allocate road space to sustainable transport including cycling, providing either segregated or withtraffic routes. Through the provision of high quality and direct cycle routes to key destinations and public transport nodes, supported by secure and accessible parking facilities at strategic locations, cycling would be further encouraged.

Further afield, possible route extensions to the Lune Valley Ramble to Hornby, Wray and Wennington and along the Lancaster Canal southwards, serving locations such as Galgate and Lancaster University are to be considered. By utilising attractive waterside routes, any improvements would also encourage recreational cycling and walking, and provide visitor attractions, which could boost tourism in the Lancaster District. Improvements may include enhanced signing, seating, lighting and resurfacing works, to ensure cycling and walking are viable throughout the year, including the winter months. In a similar manner, improvements to the cycling and walking infrastructure along the Lancaster Canal will encourage an alternative off-road, sustainable means of accessing Lancaster City Centre for commuters, from Galgate, Forton and beyond to Garstang.

The Lune Valley Cycle Route also provides an ideal alignment for the promotion of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Park and Cycleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; at the proposed Junction 34 Park & Ride site.

Faber Maunsell

2.11.2

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

32

Cycle Parking and Signing The provision of secure, well located cycle parking is essential if people are to be encouraged to use a bicycle as a means of transport. By indicating to the public that cyclists are welcome, cycle parking facilities act as a message to motorists throughout the district to consider cycling in the future.

Secure cycle parking facilities can appeal to a variety of user-groups, such as commuters cycling to the key centres, then walking to work, people cycling to bus/rail interchanges and continuing their journey on other modes of transport, or simply residents in the area who have inadequate home cycle parking, and park their cycle overnight in secure locations.

A comprehensive and coherent cycle signing strategy, possibly using colour-coded routes or route branding, as has been successfully applied in Aylesbury as part of its designation as a CDT, would also serve to promote cycling in the District, and ensure existing cycle provision is a highly visible, alternative mode of transport.

High Quality Cycle Storage and Signage 2.11.3

Cycle Hire Scheme It is considered that the introduction of a bicycle hire scheme in the District would encourage more people to cycle. Building on the concept of the existing ‘Budgie’ scheme, this will require the introduction of a series of bicycle ranks at strategic locations, and a means of charging users to hire a bike for a specified time period. Users can leave their bicycles at the nearest docking port to their destination.

Similar schemes, such as the Velib 'Freedom Bike' bicycle hire scheme in Paris, have proved very successful in encouraging people to cycle everyday journeys. The success of the Velib scheme and similar schemes elsewhere, such as Barcelona and Copenhagen has encouraged London to release plans for implementing its own cycle hire scheme.

Within the UK and further afield, a number of cities have developed a number of cycle hire initiatives often including other functions that add to their economic viability: Case Study 1: Leicester Bike Park Leicester’s Bike Park, situated at the heart of the city at the Town Hall was established ten years ago and originally offered both cycle parking and cycle hire.

Initially bikes were hired out to shoppers and commuters, however it soon became apparent that regular commuters found it more economic to purchase a bike for themselves, rather than pay a daily flat rate. Therefore this element of the scheme was shelved. The centre offers secure cycle lockers, changing facilities, showers and also has a shop and repair centre, which sells a wide range of bikes and accessories.

It is understood that the secure cycle parking scheme has been a great success, with a capacity for over 300 bikes, costing £1 a day. Companies are able to purchase a space for £145 a year.

The success of the project has been down to its central location (5 minutes from the rail station, and close to the major shopping district and the centre’s major businesses). All promotion for the centre is done through Leicester Council.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

33

Case Study 2: Mud Dock, Bristol Mud Dock, in Bristol, is a three-in-one bike hub, offering a cycle parking facility (provision for 50-60 bicycles), a bike shop and a café. Established in 2002, with assistance from Bristol City Council and the DfT, the centre is located in the heart of the city, with Temple Meads station and a number of large employers within 5 minute walk.

Demand for cycle parking, mainly from commuters, for parking varies between summer and winter. In the winter, there are on average 15-20 people who cycle, but in the summer, it is often sold out. It is understood that half the spaces are taken up by companies wishing to provide spaces for their employees and these are usually bought in block periods (mainly monthly blocks).

The bike shop sells a range of bikes, from racers to mountain bikes and if a commuter was to buy a bike from the shop, the Mud Dock will offer a discount on the future use of cycle parking/showers at the facility. In addition, the company also offers bicycle repair workshops, costing £15 per session.

Case Study 3: Finsbury Park Cycle Park, London As part of a comprehensive upgrade of the interchange, new cycle routes and access to the park was provided alongside a secure, purpose-built cycle park. Opened in 2006, Finsbury Park Cycle Park is a secure covered cycle park comprising of 125 automated lockable cycle racks. The cycle park offers cyclists the opportunity to park their bike in a secure compound for the cost of £0.50 per day. The facility is manned 6am till 10pm, though members have 24hour access.

The scheme works on the basis of a smart card system, whereby people top up their smart card and use it to access a cycle parking space. It must be noted that this is not part of the Oyster Card system yet, but it is hoped that the scheme will be fully integrated in the near future.

The number of bikes parked there on a daily basis averages approximately 65 per day, with approximately 40 bikes left overnight. Owing to the success of this and other schemes, proposals have recently been unveiled for a London network of bicycle stations with secure bike parking, shower and changing facilities and cycle repair equipment.

Case Study 4: OYBike, London The OYBike System is a street-based rental station network that allows you to hire and return a bicycle using mobile phones. OYBike bicycles, available at key transport interchanges, tube stations, public buildings and car parks are secured to stands using cables that are attached to the bicycle and which double as security locking cables when the bicycles are on hire. Each bike stand is equipped with a specially developed electronic lock operated through a keyboard and LCD display. Registered users receive a code, by which they can release and use the bicycle.

Upon return, the bicycle is locked into any empty port at an available OYBike station and users are then required to enter a pin code to terminate the hire period. The first half hour is free with prices increasing to £8 for the whole day.

Case Study 5: Munster, Germany Munster prides itself on its bicycle-friendly status and is also home to perhaps the best example of a cycle park/bike hire centre in Europe. Munster RadStation (Cycle station), located adjacent to Munster’s main rail station, has spaces for 3,500 cycles and contains a cycle shop, cycle repair centre, a cycle washing plant and a cycle hire centre. Costs for parking range from £0.50 for 1 day- to £65 for an annual space and the centre is open between 5am and 11pm. The project has been an overwhelming success with over 80% of the spaces occupied on a daily basis.

The station is in the heart of the city and is within walking distance of major companies and tourist attractions. It should also be noted that Munster is the European ‘cycle capital’, with a very good cycle network infrastructure set up throughout the city.

Within the UK, there are very few companies/organisations which offer both cycle parking and cycle hire. Cycle hire is mainly reserved for tourist areas and areas of high student population.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

34

The case studies above provide examples of successful schemes for potential application to the Lancaster District.

Successful schemes need to be reasonably priced, secure, linked to established routes and fit for purpose (i.e. located in close proximity to arrival points, interchanges and destination points).

2.11.4

‘Park & Cycle’ The introduction of ‘Park & Cycle’ initiatives would see the provision of cycle facilities (lockers, showers etc) at designated Park & Ride sites. Commuters would park their vehicles at the designated sites and continue their journey by bicycle, using high quality cycle routes provided between the facility and key employment sites, such as Lancaster University, the Royal Lancaster Infirmary or White Lund Industrial Estate.

Over time such a facility could be expanded to provide cycle hire to allow people from the urban area to access the surrounding countryside for leisure as well as parking for those who cycle inwards.

2.11.5

Travel Planning and Publicity Relatively high modal shift to cycling can be achieved through modest investment in initiatives such as publicity measures and Travel Planning. Through the provision of information relating to the benefits of cycling, and encouraging more businesses and organisations to produce Travel Plans, which include measures to promote cycling, the numbers of those cycling in the district can be increased.

2.11.6

Targeted Training Initiatives Learning how to cycle properly makes cycling much more enjoyable and safer for everyone – children, adults and other road users. It can assist in promoting cycling for those who never cycle, and encourage occasional users to cycle more regularly.

2.11.7

The Vision for Cycling in Lancaster The implementation of a wider cycle strategy and other safety measures would encourage more people to take to cycling which is both healthy and environmentally friendly. The aim of this cycling strategy is to create a district where people of all ages, abilities and cultures have the incentive, confidence and facilities to cycle whenever it suits them.

This vision for cycling in the Lancaster District is as follows:

Provision of secure cycle parking facilities at all transport interchanges, in Lancaster City Centre and at all District and Local Centres, at shopping centres, at public buildings and other attractors of significant numbers of people, and in all new significant developments; Gaps in cycle parking (e.g. workplaces, schools, residential areas) should be identified and addressed; Develop a district-wide quality cycle hire/storage scheme, with ‘Bicycle Stations’ at key locations offering hire, storage, repair services, and changing and showering facilities.

Developing and adopting standards for new developments (commercial and residential), which stipulates the type and quality of cycle parking storage facilities appropriate for each development; Planners should ensure that routes in new developments are attractive and where possible overlooked; Make better use of the existing network of roads by reducing speed limits, implementing cycle lanes and provision of Advance Stop Lines (ASLs) at traffic signals; Provision of measures to facilitate the transport of cycles on buses and trains; Improved security on existing segregated/isolated cycling routes; Improved cycling links to public transport facilities, key employers, secondary schools and further education locations in the District; Develop a Quality Cycle Network with priority access, enhanced safety measures and supported by a regular maintenance programme; Promote cycling and its status (e.g. plans, guides, local events, bicycle surgeries, training); Incentive and support for target groups through cycle training, particularly aimed at specific target groups such as school children, women and disabled people; Promote and support bicycle loan schemes; Increase mutual awareness and respect between cyclists, pedestrians and other road users;

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

35

Promote cycle links and interchange schemes; Utilising cyclist groups in the design panel of all new roads, highway improvements, and traffic management measures, and ensure that all works are completed to a high standard; Improve co-ordination and partnership. This work will focus on ensuring effective working partnerships and the development of professional capacity and training; Promote the development of Park & Cycle Initiatives at proposed Park & Ride sites or standalone sites linked to the core cycle network; The highway authority should build on the existing work undertaken in relation to personalised travel planning and its associated travel modes; and Reserve existing corridors for transport through the local planning authority.

These objectives will be achieved through improved co-ordination, cycle guidelines and will also depend on the provision of funding, which subject to additional funding from the CDT initiative, is likely to be limited to provision contained in the LTP. 2.12

Signage and Information Strategy Signage in Lancaster, like most other cities, is not part of a cohesive system, but has developed organically over decades in a piecemeal fashion. In general terms, these signing systems are incoherent and lack the consistency required to deliver users to their ultimate desired destination.

As a number of the core cities such as Bristol and Liverpool are realising the value that good signage and branding can add to its cities as major economic drivers and tourist destinations, a number of town and cities in the UK are embarking on comprehensive branding and signage strategies. Urban renaissance, as currently being experienced in Manchester, Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool provides a very real opportunity and stimulus for cities to redefine and promote themselves. Modern signing strategies are seen as part of the tool kit in that renaissance, as cities can only succeed if they connect people with places and ensure efficiency of movement.

Renewal and growth must be supported by clear communication strategies, which also contribute to maximising the ways in which cities can highlight and trade on their differences.

Of the other major British cities, Bristol, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield are the most advanced in terms of a pedestrian signing and identity. Bristol, with its ‘Bristol, Legible City’ branding, is regarded as the frontrunner in developing a 21st century signing project.

Bristol ‘Legible City’ Being the most advanced of Britain’s major cities in comprehensively renewing its city signs in ways which create a uniquely branded, but easily understood, way-finding system for the City, Bristol offers a range of good practice examples and innovations, but the experiences of some of the other major cities there also sound some cautionary notes to inform other cities in the development of their own signage strategies.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

36

Bristol Innovative Public Information and Wayfinding Schemes A review of best practice throughout the UK has identified that there is no ‘one cap fits all’ approach but that each city demands a unique signing strategy, tailored to its own needs and reflecting its particular strengths and qualities. However some general signage project principles are summarised in the conclusions below: A successful signage project must embrace the whole journey experience – it must be recalled that ‘walking is the glue that links all trips together’; Signage and information provision needs to encompass all potential users, drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, as well as those familiar with the area and those such as visitors who are unfamiliar with the location; A modern strategy calls for a radical rethink of approach; Partnerships involving many public and private stakeholders are necessary to define the breadth of scope and identify all destinations to be addressed; Uniformity and clarity in design is vital; Projects can only be delivered if there is a medium to long-term commitment to its planning and funding; and A signing project will never be ‘complete,’ as urban renewal is a constant process, schemes therefore need to be dynamic and adaptable.

2.12.1

Existing Situation Lancaster’s current signing and public information is not particularly legible compared to other similar tourist destinations and could be improved to promote more sustainable transport trips.

Criticisms of the current strategy are as follows: Lancaster has good strategic road and rail connections however, movement within the City Centre is more difficult as there is a lack of consistent signing to visitor attractions and the quality of car parking is generally poor; The connectivity between the main railway station and the bus station, is poor and signed via two routes, one via China Street/Bridge Lane and the other less direct, but via the pedestrianised core; Lack of consistent signing to visitor attractions; Absence of directional signage to/from car parks; There is an extensive network of walking and cycle routes in the district, however with the exception of the core signed cycle routes, they are not sufficiently identified; Un-coordinated application of the Lancaster City Council corporate identity; Limited map-based information component currently not provided on street. Existing maps, both on signs and in printed and electronic format, vary considerably in terms of content and mapping style – therefore a confusing picture is presented, in particular for first time visitors; and Lack of co-ordination in the communication of the relationship of the Lancaster District to strategic locations such as Carnforth and its proximity to the Lake District National Park.

In the circumstances, it is proposed to develop an overall signing and public information plan for Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe District Centre to facilitate pedestrian movements through the area and improve links between public transport facilities, car parks and visitor attractions. The signage will be user-friendly, accessible and should incorporate way-finding features.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

37

The delivery of an improved signage/way-finding system for the Lancaster District and particularly Lancaster City Centre will ensure the satisfaction of the following: The need to create an enhanced sense of arrival and a distinct sense of place in Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe and its key areas through gateway and boundary signage and related measures; The requirement that all signage is easily understood, high quality, and integrated for all visitors, tourists, workers and residents, particularly in Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe; The potential for signage to contribute to the wider branding and promotion of Lancaster and of key visitor attractions/destinations; The need to maximise the attraction of visitors to and from the key waterways, linking directly with and adding value to the proposals for improved access to and alongside the River Lune and the Lancaster Canal; Wherever possible, to achieve consistency of approach to signage and area branding across the City Centre, in liaison with external providers of visitor information, mapping and signage (e.g. rail and bus stations, Lancashire County Council services); The need to develop solutions that minimise street clutter, inconsistencies and duplication of signage and which clearly contribute to the creation of quality public space; The need to encourage greater use of public transport within and to the City Centre, and to encourage the usage of pedestrian routes across the City Centre; and The need to integrate regeneration, development and transportation projects.

Pedestrian signage, Lancaster

Inconsistent Gateway Boundary Style

Lancaster City Centre Mapping

Faber Maunsell

2.12.2

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

38

The Strategy The application of a successful way-finding system can encourage people to walk and cycle to local destinations and encourage the use of local facilities. Signing ensures that residents and visitors alike use the most appropriate route to their destination, thus further increasing the potential for modal shift, which has additional health and sustainability benefits.

The development of a City Centre way-finding strategy should incorporate the following elements:

Consistent, legible and concise pedestrian and cycle network signage; Provision of appropriate signage and mapping at points of arrival (railway station, bus station and car parks), public transport and visitor destinations. The use of heads-up mapping is proposed to assist the user; Pedestrian routes to/from shopping areas/key destinations and key car parks should be emphasised; and Provision for all users including those with disabilities and visual or audio impairments (adherence to Disability Discrimination Act).

Concurrently, the scheme could also provide an opportunity to: Removal, repair or rationalisation of redundant or poor quality street furniture and signage to reduce clutter thus enhancing the environment and reducing confusion; Environmental improvements in and around car parks to promote pedestrian priority and improved internal and external way-finding; Development of a lighting strategy for the City Centre, key routes and gateways to emphasise and promote key walking and cycling routes; Enhanced physical appearance of gateways at key arrival points to create an improved sense of welcome and present a more coherent and distinctive City Centre image; Increase the profile of other areas of the district at key arrival points, such as Lancaster and Morecambe rail stations; Development of a public realm strategy and streetscape design manual to enhance the District and improve the visitor experience; and Develop a public art strategy to reinforce place identity and assist orientation.

2.12.3

Neighbourhoods In order to enhance the unique visitor experience in Lancaster, it is proposed to adopt a Neighbourhood approach to the signing strategy for Lancaster and Morecambe. This would take advantage of the exciting changes recently completed, underway or proposed and could provide unique opportunities to build on current signage systems as infrastructure is renewed.

Actual and potential projects include the redevelopment of Luneside, Canal Corridor North, Kingsway, Lawsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Quay and others.

The concept of neighbourhoods within Lancaster would be developed on the unique character and strengths of specific areas and linked to the regeneration potential. There is a need to provide a consistent approach to names of the areas, not just for signing but also for any publicity material and branding, to ensure that there is no opportunity for confusion. This strategy assumes that the area would be divided into around 5-6 neighbourhoods, each with a short name and logo that could be incorporated into signing. There are a number that are already clearly identified and understood by the public, for example Castle & Priory, Luneside and the Cultural Quarter.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

39

Castle & Priory Precinct The final areas, and their names, would need to be developed through a consultation process involving residents, business representatives, local members and other stakeholders within the area. For example, key stakeholders in Lancaster City Centre include: Lancaster City Council; Lancaster & Morecambe Vision; Lancashire County Council; Lancaster Tourism Partnership; Transport operators (e.g. Stagecoach); North West Development Agency; St Nicholas Arcade Shopping Centre; and Primary Health Care Trust.

It is considered important to utilise existing colloquial names for the areas, as the nomenclature must resonate with both visitors and locals alike. As Lancaster and Morecambe develop and expands its boundaries, additional neighbourhoods and zones can be added and incorporated into the signing and branding.

These neighbourhoods would be used for information at the pedestrian level and it is envisaged that the identities could be incorporated into the following: 2.12.4

Pedestrian Signage The name and symbol could be incorporated into the fingerposts/signage providing visitors with an understanding of their general location. It would also provide visitors and occupants of an area with a sense of arrival and place, and help to reinforce the unique identity of each of the distinct neighbourhoods within the key centres.

The neighbourhoods would be used to manage the number of destinations to be signed on each post, for example, Castle & Priory would be the destination appearing on signs until the pedestrian either enters the neighbourhood or gets to within an agreed distance, when they would be given the directions to individual locations, such as the Castle, Tourist Information Centre or Priory.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

40

Pedestrians moving around the city centre would be able to identify their location to a particular neighbourhood through the use of the name or symbol on, for example, street nameplates, street furniture and information panels.

2.12.5

Marketing Information The neighbourhoods could be used by organisations and businesses, such as hotels, restaurants or visitor attractions, on their marketing material. For example, hotels would be able to advertise their location as being within a particular neighbourhood, and visitors would be able to use signs and maps to locate the area, find the closest place to park or the nearest public transport facility and identify nearby attractions.

Without clear signage, there could be some opportunity for confusion between neighbourhoods and zones, and it is likely that local people and businesses would more readily identify with neighbourhoods, the majority of which are already well established and implanted in peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consciousness.

As part of the strategy, it would be necessary to incorporate and ensure consistency of:

Printed visitor map and guides for pedestrians and cyclists; Visitor trails and guides, informed by the Wayfinding Strategy; and Provision of web based information on journeys, travel arrangements, accommodation and itinerary.

2.12.6

Interpretative Mapping Boards Consideration should be given to the introduction of interpretative mapping boards to supplement the fingerpost system, to allow the user to build a mental map of the journey rather than being reliant on following a series of rudimentary signing elements. Ultimately, this will enhance both the usability and image of the way-finding system.

2.12.7

Car Parking Vehicular Signage/Zones Upon finalisation of the neighbourhoods, it is proposed that Lancaster should consider aggregating its neighbourhoods into a manageable number of zones for the purposes of a vehicular signing strategy. Each zone would need to be given unique identities, which could be incorporated into both Primary Route Network and parking directional signage.

Zoning will necessitate a signing hierarchy and clear mapping at main arrival points in the City Centre, so that pedestrians are able to identify in which quarter the particular neighbourhood they are visiting, is located. Each zone would need to be identifiable; either by boundary markers or through the use of logos or names on street furniture and secondary signage within zones would give directions to individual neighbourhoods.

2.12.8

Parking Guidance Information and Signage Provision of information to drivers about parking is an important element of signage, both for regular and occasional visitors to the District. There are two levels of signage - fixed, which provides the direction, and variable signing, which provides both vital Real Time Information about the availability of spaces and also directions via the most appropriate route.

The variable element of this directional signing could also incorporate information about roadworkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, temporary diversions and the like, subject to ensuring that the size of the overall sign does not become too large, nor the message too confusing. A major advantage of variable signage is that it can play a vital traffic management role by minimising unnecessary street running in the City Centre, contribute to the visitor experience by enhancing the legibility of the city and support the viability of City Centre venues.

Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth currently have fixed directional parking signage, though it is understood that Lancaster City Council is accumulating development contributions to fund schemes such as an electronic transport information system via Section 106 Agreements.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

41

Existing Car Park Signing Strategy, Lancaster City Centre 2.12.9

Vision for Signage Further development work will be required when/if the principle of neighbourhoods and zones is agreed, as follows: Comprehensive signage and street furniture audit; Opportunities for neighbourhood identification; A zonal parking strategy; An agreed palette of materials; and Consideration given to ensuring the scheme can be consistent with further expansions across the district, in particular expanding the scheme to include District and Local Centres, and key walking and cycling routes.

Many of the previous options and recommendations contained in this section are longer term, requiring significant pre-planning and resource. Faber Maunsell suggest that the series of schemes related to pedestrian/cycle modes and to signing initiatives across the city could be considered as early gains, fitting with the current LTP process and potentially capable of securing relatively small scale but accessible funding from a series of transport and nontransport sources.

2.13

Reducing the Need to Travel/Travel Planning A key aspect of the wider transport vision for the Lancaster District is in promoting a reduction in the need to travel by other than sustainable modes. In general this is done through Travel Plans, which may be secured through Section 106 agreements or as a condition of planning approval. Within Lancashire, the County Council promotes public transport, walking and cycling as sustainable modes of transport and encourages the participants of Travel Plans to opt for these travel modes. A full time Employment Access Co-ordinator is employed to promote sustainable journeys to work within Lancaster. Through endorsing the following measures, it is hoped that sustainable travel can be developed to benefit the environment and all users of the highway network.

As noted in the baseline report, Faber Maunsell was recently tasked with undertaking a study of the Travel Plan processes in place at each of the District and Unitary authorities in Lancashire, on behalf of Lancashire County Council. The study included an audit of existing Travel Plan practises at each authority, and an analysis of Travel Plans that have been submitted. The study revealed there was scope for improvement with several elements of process, particularly in relation to maintaining records, and monitoring of Travel Plans.

Following on from this work, a workshop was undertaken with key contacts from each authority explaining the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s findings, and discussing potential ways forward. The feedback from the workshop enabled the development of a guidance note, and the formulation of a series of recommendations aimed at improving current practices. Following this study, Faber Maunsell suggests a number of recommendations that are designed to improve the Travel Plan processes currently being undertaken in Lancashire. A number of recommendations were made to improve the position at a local level and these, detailed in the baseline study (January, 2008) are envisaged as forming a critical element of the wider vision and strategy.

Faber Maunsell

2.13.1

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

42

Lifestyle Changes Affecting the Need to Travel Flexibility – Peak Spreading, Remote Working and Variable Work Patterns Changes in working practices in recent years has led to more flexible working hours, working from home or other remote locations, part time and shift working and telephone and video conferencing. This has led to a reduction in the number of car journeys and a phenomenon referred to as ‘peak spreading’ of traffic flows, whereby the peak period for traffic movements is more likely to be spread over a longer period, than concentrated in 30 – 60 minutes. However, for a significant impact to be made on the congested road networks, this could be further encouraged. The provision of a range of local employment opportunities and more flexibility in working practices will reduce the impacts during the traditional morning and evening peaks.

Encouraging businesses locating in the Lancaster District to support flexible working arrangements and variable work patterns, is also important to ensure that the District’s roads and public transport services can cope.

School Travel Plans There is currently a major programme of school travel planning including the development of Safe Routes to School and local safety schemes with the aim of encouraging an increase in the number of pupils walking to school rather than being driven by parents. Evidence from traffic surveys during school holidays suggests that flows decrease significantly without the school run, impacting on the network between 8:30am and 9:00am. By 2010, the government is looking to ensure that every school has produced and adopted a Travel Plan with an emphasis on discouraging car travel and promoting children to walk, cycle or use public transport as a means of getting to/from school. Currently 90% of schools in Lancaster District have a school travel plan. In order to maintain the momentum of this initiative, it is essential that schools are compelled to regularly monitor modal choice and maintain an active Travel Plan incorporating the following aspects:

Background on the school and its location, size etc; Baseline data including current travel patterns; Objectives of the plan stating what it is trying to achieve; An audit of existing travel infrastructure; Targets against which the success of the plan will be measured; Actions required to meet the targets including timetable for delivery and who will be responsible for delivery; Monitoring programme and results as per the district/Lancashire County Council requirements; Details of how the plan will be promoted; and Who will be responsible for the plan and co-ordinating travel issues.

Commitment and support from local authorities with regard to implementing appropriate measures identified in the process, is also required to ensure that schools are encouraged to achieve identified targets.

Workplace/Development Travel Plans Planning approval for new developments should require a framework travel plan to be produced prior to permission being given. This should include a monitoring programme and specific targets for reducing the use of cars for both commuting and business trips. Improved enforcement of monitoring should be considered at the approval stage. New developments should provide suitable facilities for cyclists including secure parking, lockers for equipment/clothing and showers. Opportunities for personalised travel planning should be considered to identify alternative modes of travel. Residential developers should be encouraged to provide facilities for storing cycles and the provision of a travel pack including information on public transport and walking or cycling to local facilities.

Internet Shopping, Commerce and Learning In recent years, Internet shopping and commerce has gained in popularity with the result that fewer trips are made for shopping, banking, meetings etc. There are significant benefits to individuals and employers in terms of eliminating unnecessary travel time providing more time for leisure activities or more efficient working. In addition, the internet is also a significant tool for learning and institutions are increasingly offering e-learning as a way of achieving attainment. As more of the population has access to the Internet either at home, at work or via

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

43

community schemes, this method of shopping, commerce and learning will increase in popularity. This use of technology also has a positive impact on the need to travel, reducing the number of trips made across the network. Whilst trips will still be made for window shopping and making decisions on purchases, these trips could be made more easily on public transport or by ‘greener’ modes, with actual purchases delivered separately, thus reducing potential car trips.

There are many ways in which access to the internet can be facilitated such as ensuring that new residential properties have good access to the Internet and increasing provision at community facilities such as libraries, leisure centres, clinics etc. Consequently, it will be increasingly necessary to ensure that secure locations for deliveries are provided when residents are at work.

Car Sharing/Car Clubs The provision of quality public transport and alternatives to providing car parking spaces both at the workplace and in residential developments, and the increased number of developers selling parking spaces separately from apartments and houses, may encourage a decrease in car ownership. This can be encouraged by the establishment of car clubs either on a local basis or district wide, whereby people can ‘rent’ a car when they need it, avoiding the need to pay out for buying a car, regular maintenance and insurance. Increasingly in congested locations, employers are signing up to car clubs or using pool cars for business needs and this too, is negating the need for private cars. Consideration needs to be given to the financing of the car club which may not be self financing, especially during the initial period.

2.13.2

Influencing Travel Behaviour One way in which the Highways Agency is seeking to promote sustainable travel and reduce congestion on the strategic road network is through its Influencing Travel Behaviour programme. The Highways Agency is seeking to provide access to information to help people make smarter travel choices and introducing demand management measures in areas prone to congestion. The strategy in taking this forward aims to balance the needs of people to travel with the available capacity of the road network.

A key component of the strategy is the delivery of effective Travel Plans, which rely on effective partnership working, with bodies such as Local Authorities, Regional Development Agencies, strategic partners and private sector companies. In addition to delivering congestion and time saving benefits, smarter choices initiatives offer environmental benefits, such as reduced noise levels and improved air quality.

Of relevance to the Lancaster District, this programme could be of particular application to Lancaster University and the proposed Lancaster Science Park, which constitutes the knowledge- based capital of the District, both of which do/potentially generate a significant volume of long distance trips.

2.13.3

Summary The areas considered above have been incorporated into the strategy set out in the following chapters. However, many of the areas require input at the planning stage to set out what is required of the developer as part of the planning approval.

Faber Maunsell

2.14

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

44

Summary The strategy is therefore based around the following points: Improved interchange and integration Introduce innovative solutions to multiple issues

Promote use of ‘Green Modes’

LMV Transport Strategy Enhance and develop sustainable routes

Create an Integrated Public Transport Matrix Make best use of the existing network

Project Summary Chart

A summary of the key themes includes:

Making best use of the existing network by ensuring maximisation of capacity through parking enforcement, removing bottlenecks, improving junction capacities and strategic signage; Creating an integrated public transport matrix as a result of changing land use in the area; Introducing innovative integrated transport solutions to provide simultaneous transport solutions to multiple issues; Promoting the use of the ‘Green Modes’ of walking and cycling by improving accessibility, providing quality facilities and incentivising sustainable travel; Improving interchange between all modes and creating interchange zones surrounded by higher density development; and Enhancing strategic sustainable routes by providing linkages from neighbourhoods, improving safety and security and promotion of benchmark transport solutions for a wide variety of issues.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

3

Coarse Appraisal of Schemes

3.1

45

Summary Following completion of the baseline report, public consultation and site investigations, problems were identified and presented in a previous report, (Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy Baseline Report, January 2008).

This â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;long listâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of potential solutions is the next logical step in the preparation of a Transport Vision and Strategy for the Lancaster District and this will present a wide range of measures that could be implemented to address or mitigate the previously identified problems.

This chapter is presented in the following sections:

Identification of Principal Problems; Long List of Potential Opportunities; Quality Assurance of the Long List Solutions; and Course Appraisal of the Long List.

The final section presents a coarse appraisal matrix in tabular form to assess the identified solutions against the three principal problems.

3.2

Principal Problems

3.2.1

Background After due consideration, the baseline stage of the Lancaster District Vision project has identified nine key transport issues in the Lancaster District. These are as follows:

Development in the south curtailed by the constraints of the A6 (Galgate Crossroads); Lack of connectivity between Lancaster and Morecambe, and between Lancaster and Lancaster University; Congestion in Lancaster City Centre; Lack of integration between main leisure, retail, business, and transport hubs in Lancaster City Centre; Lack of quality public transport offer encourages car trips; Limited River Lune crossing opportunities; Insufficient public transport priority in Lancaster City Centre adding to journey time and diluting bus offer; Poor pedestrian facilities and public realm particularly in Morecambe; and Lack of/discontinuity of cycle routes in the area.

In general, these issues may be summarised into the following three principal problems to be addressed by the schemes progressing from the long list to the short list during the Coarse Appraisal stage of the visioning process. These principal problems are as follows: 1. Poor connectivity between Lancaster and Morecambe, and between Lancaster and other district centres such as Carnforth, Heysham and Lancaster University; 2. Traffic congestion in Lancaster City Centre caused by a large volume of through-traffic passing through the centre via an inefficient one-way system causing undue delay; and 3. Poor environment and public realm for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the study area but particularly within the Morecambe area These principal problem areas will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

3.2.2

Poor Connectivity between Lancaster and other main centres Connections between Lancaster and the other main centres within the Lancaster District are of low quality. This is true of all modes and is particularly problematic when travelling between Lancaster and Morecambe. This is due to the following points: -

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

3.2.3

46

Roads are congested, particularly to the north of Lancaster, where constraints on network capacity, which includes the Lune Bridges gyratory, impacts on journey reliability for all traffic especially at peak times; Rail links are relatively quick compared to other modes but are inadequate due to an infrequent service routed via Bare Lane to the north which does not serve the population well. In addition, poor quality rolling stock and signalling issues limiting capacity add to the service problems; Public transport priority exists intermittently along the A589/A683 route between Lancaster and Morecambe but unreliability, heavy traffic and the lack of consistency, coupled with the congestion in Lancaster City Centre can sometimes lead to lengthy journey times between the two locations; and In addition, connectivity and journey time reliability is poor between Lancaster and Lancaster University with high volumes of traffic along the A6, long public transport journey times due to unreliability and inefficient routeing and no rail link leading to the requirement for an interchange at Lancaster despite the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location some considerable way south of the city.

Lancaster City Centre Traffic Congestion Traffic congestion is problematic within Lancaster due to the coincidence of several major routes at the centre. These include Morecambe Road/Caton Road (A683) linking to the M6, and the A6 major north-south route. This results in high proportions of north-south through trips competing for road space with City Centre users such as shoppers, inward commuters, public transport, and servicing vehicles.

This issue is exacerbated by the existence of a large one-way system comprising of three individual one-way systems around the centre and across the two northern Lune bridges. This has limited City Centre traffic capacity and has resulted in congestion.

Whilst the Heysham to M6 Link Road provides significant benefits to journey time reliability and reduces the level of congestion on a number of key corridors (in part or whole), in isolation, it does not resolve all transport problems on the city centre gyratory and would require other complementary measures as indicated in this report.

3.2.4

Poor Pedestrian and Cyclist Environment and Public Realm Although a large portion of the study area has adequate pedestrian facilities, there are areas with very narrow footways and other areas with inadequate footway provision compared with the frontage activity. Indeed, in some parts of the study area, the pedestrian environment can currently be perceived as unattractive with motor vehicles dominant within the area.

Given the long-term aspirations for the study area, the levels of pedestrian flow are expected to increase and in order to accommodate this, the pedestrian environment and facilities of the area will require improvement. A number of proposals will therefore be suggested to accommodate these aspirations and the details of these are in the next section.

In addition, cycling facilities within the main centres around the study area are limited. Cycle routes do exist between Lancaster and Morecambe but roadspace is limited within the City and Town centres and consequently cyclists are often a neglected mode. Suggestions will therefore also be made to improve cycle provision and environment within the study area.

The need for pedestrian signage should be carefully considered as part of the improvements to the pedestrian environment. Pedestrian signage is required at key arrival and destination points to provide general visitor information and directions to adjacent attractions and facilities.

Pedestrian permeability does not appear to be restricted by lack of crossing facilities, however, the pedestrian phase minimum green and the intergreen timings to and from the pedestrian stages at some of the signalised junctions appeared not to conform to current industry standards for crossing facilities and therefore a full signal timing review would also be recommended.

3.3

Long List of Solutions

3.3.1

Long List Scheme Descriptions Table 3.1 presents the key opportunities identified during both the baseline study and the stakeholder consultations, some of which will be taken forward as part of the Transport Vision

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

47

and Strategy. The full long list of schemes from which this table is drawn may be found in Appendix A. Table 3.1: Potential Opportunities No Scheme PT1

PT2 PT3

PT4 PT5

PT6 PT7

PT8

Introduce ‘Red Routes’ and other Enhanced Bus Priority Measures Integrated Public Transport Ticketing Free Bus Pass for Secondary School Children Creation of Express Routes Increased Evening and Weekend Bus Services Lancaster City Centre ‘Metro Shuttle’ Lancaster City Centre Bus Routeing Review

PT10

New Public Transport Lune Bridge Heysham Bus Terminus Bus Rapid Transit

PT11

Light Rail

PT12

Ultra-light Rail

PT13

Hanging Railway/ Monorail

PT14

Expansion of Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) Creation of a new rail station at Lancaster University Rail station facility upgrades

PT9

PT15

PT16

PT17

PT18

PT19 PT20

Lancaster and Morecambe Rail Signalling improvements Additional stations on Heysham to Morecambe line.

Carnforth – Leeds Rail Line Timetable Review Carnforth – West Coast Mainline Link

Description

Upgrade QBCs to ‘red route’ specifications with freeflowing bus lanes, Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) and improved stop facilities.

Introduce a public transport ticketing scheme to allow easy interchange between services and modes.

Provide all children of secondary school age with a free bus pass to discourage car-based school journey trips.

Creation of a wider range of bus express routes to regional and national destinations.

Introduce additional evening and weekend bus services on key routes throughout the District.

Introduce regular shuttle-bus linking key destinations within Lancaster City Centre.

Review the traffic management and one-way systems in place to prioritise public transport creating efficient and quick routes.

Construct a new bridge over the river and reserve for sustainable modes.

Relocate bus terminus in Heysham to a point nearer the rail and ferry termini.

Introduce Bus Rapid Transit (either electric trolleybus or diesel streetcar) with dedicated priority lanes to provide a rapid link between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Introduction of a ground level rapid transit system between Lancaster and Morecambe, possibly extending to Lancaster University or Junction 34 of the M6.

Introduction of a Personal Rapid Transit or other ultra-light system on fixed track between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Introduction of an elevated mode between Lancaster and Morecambe, possibly extending to Lancaster University or Junction 34 of the M6.

Expansion of DRT to serve all of the larger rural settlements in the District.

Introduce a new rail station at the Oubeck sidings serving Lancaster University and south Lancaster District.

Improve facilities such as parking, waiting and passenger facilities particularly at Bare Lane, Heysham and Morecambe stations.

Increase capacity on Morecambe to Lancaster rail line by upgrading signalling between Bare Lane and Morecambe.

Introduce new rail stations between Morecambe and Heysham.

Introduction of a clock-faced timetable on the Carnforth to Leeds rail line.

Construct a rail chord between the Leeds line north of Carnforth and the WCML.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

No

Scheme

T1

Park & Ride

T2

Junction Improvements

T3

Traffic Calming

T4

T6

Lancaster City Centre One-Way System Review Congestion Charging and Public Transport Upgrades Junction 33 Relocation

T7

Western Relief Road

T8

Freight / Servicing of the Retail Centre

T9

Lancaster City Centre co-ordinated home delivery service.

Promotion of Freight Bicycles / Bicycle Couriers Car Club / Car Sharing Scheme High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Interceptor Car Parks

T5

T10

T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 P1 P2

P3

P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

C1

Coach Parking Strategy Signage and Information Strategy Townscape Improvements Upgrade existing pedestrian crossing points Improve pedestrian permeability in Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe Traffic-free Lancaster City Centre Improve Pedestrian Access to Car Parks 20mph City Centre Speed Limit Dalton Square Enhancements Morecambe Promenade Cycle Facility Improvements

48

Description Comprehensive study and implementation of Park & Ride sites at several locations around the district.

Review of ways of relieving congestion and delay at junctions including signal timing review, changes to junction layouts, and the introduction of Urban Traffic Control (UTC) systems.

Introduce Traffic Calming measures throughout the district.

Review of routeing in Lancaster City Centre to minimise congestion and prioritise non-car modes.

Introduce congestion charging within Lancaster City Centre using the proceeds to fund large-scale public transport upgrades.

Relocation of junction 33 of the M6 to a point north of Galgate and combine with a Park & Ride scheme.

Creation of a new link between junction 33 of the M6 and the A683 Morecambe bypass.

Introduction of a Freight Consolidation Centre to reduce the number of goods vehicles routeing through Lancaster City Centre.

Introduce a co-ordinated home delivery service.

Introduction of bicycle couriers to transport documentation or lighter goods.

Introduce a car club/car sharing scheme to decrease the proportion of vehicle with a single occupant.

Re-allocate existing carriageway space to create HOV lanes.

Provision of car parks to the north and south of Lancaster City Centre to remove traffic from the main gyratory.

Creation of a strategy and identification of specific coach parking locations.

A comprehensive review and redesign of all signage in Lancaster and Morecambe areas.

Introduction of surface treatments to the carriageway, planting of trees, and improved lighting and public realm.

Provision of suitable dropped kerbs, tactile paving and associated improvements at all controlled and uncontrolled crossing on strategic routes.

Introduction of measures to improve permeability and reduce severance including reduction of traffic speeds, and provision of more crossing points.

Severance of all through-routes across Lancaster City Centre to create a pedestrian and PT only zone.

Introduction of good pedestrian access to all district car parks.

Creation of a 20mph zone incorporating the one-way areas within the City Centre.

Redesign of traffic management, access and public realm surrounding Dalton Square.

Public realm improvements on and around Morecambe Promenade integrated with public transport enhancements.

Introduction of Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs), Toucan crossings, and high quality secure cycle parking facilities.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

No

49

Scheme

Description

C2 C3

Park & Cycle Cycle Signage Review

C4

Cycle Hire Scheme

C5

Cycle Rickshaws

C6

Enhanced Security on Cycle Routes

O1

New Lune Bridge

O2

Travel Plan Monitoring

O3

Additional Home Zone Schemes Waterbus Extension

Creation of Park & Cycle sites linked into Park & Ride.

Implementation of cycle signage policy review including directional and journey time signage.

Introduction of a cycle-hire scheme with pick-up and dropoff points throughout the district.

Introduction of cycle rickshaw transportation permitted to use pedestrianised areas.

Provision of security improvement measures including vegetation thinning, CCTV, help points and extra policing/surveillance.

Construction of a new bridge link over the river north of Lancaster City Centre with restrictions.

Provision of resources to ensure travel plans are enforced.

Provision of further Home Zones in residential areas around the District.

Extension of the Carnforth to Lancaster waterbus service to link with Galgate in the south.

Creation of a large rail freight terminal adjacent to the Heysham to Morecambe rail line and port facilities.

Production of a comprehensive masterplan for the Morecambe area including urban design, property ownership, transport and access, and environmental considerations.

O4 O5 O6

Heysham Rail Freight Terminal Morecambe Masterplan

As can be seen, the schemes are developed in relation to a range of modes, many of which overlap. Each feeds towards the wider vision but can be developed individually as part of the strategy. Some are planned elements of the LTP, others are natural extensions of this. Each item is part of a modal strategy – the modal strategies overlap as a strong ‘integrated’ transport strategy should do. Consideration of key nodes and hubs has been made to make sure the schemes are comprehensive.

3.3.2

Scheme Aims Overall the aims of schemes listed are broadly but not exclusively;

Items PT1-PT4: To make more use of natural assets of the District and its population for ‘sustainable’ travel around the urban and rural areas.

Items PT5-PT14: To build towards a longer term cross-district public transport service, that provides multiple opportunities.

Items PT15-PT20: To ensure maximum but realistic use of rail assets of the city.

Items T1-T7: To provide appropriate alternative traffic routes, filling in ‘gaps’ in car provision but not necessarily adding to capacity in schemes that would encourage more car use in inappropriate areas.

Items T8-T12: To promote consolidated and rationalised travel choices reducing the number of unnecessary vehicle trips on the districts roads.

Items T13-T15: To create gateway car parking of a stronger quality than at present and in locations that are not to the detriment of the City Centre public realm.

Items P1–C6: To create strong ability to walk and cycle to and around the District.

Items O1-O6: To ensure that the District’s assets are being used to their fullest potential.

Following the identification of the principal problems and the production of the long list noted above, the following section will present a list of potential solutions adapted from the long list that may help to address the principal problems.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

3.4

Principal Problem 1 - Poor Connectivity

3.4.1

Public Transport Schemes to Increase Connectivity

50

PT1: Introduce Red Routes and Other Bus Priority Measures This scheme seeks to reduce bus journey times between Lancaster and the other main centres in the District by introducing comprehensive bus priority on a number of routes. These measures include combining free-flowing bus lanes utilising ‘no waiting at any time’ TRO’s, traffic light priority via Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD), and improved quality vehicles and stops with displays. The introduction of such measures would improve bus efficiency and attractiveness especially at peak times.

Bus Priority Measures in Birmingham and Chelmsford

PT2: Integrated Public Transport Ticketing This would introduce a comprehensive through-ticketing scheme for all modes of public transport within the study area to allow easy interchange between buses, trains and other selected modes of travel. This scheme would require co-operation between public transport providers but could be used to reward frequent users as an incentive for travelling in a sustainable manner.

PT3: Free Bus Pass for Children of Secondary School Age This initiative would involve providing each child of secondary school age with a free bus pass to encourage sustainable travel and reduce congestion caused by the effects of the so-called ‘school run’ accounting for around 20% of peak time traffic flows in some cases around the district. It is hoped that the scheme would not only reduce the numbers of parents taking children to school by car, but would also acquaint children with public transport to encourage use later in life.

PT4: Creation of Express Bus Routes A comprehensive set of express bus routes would be created to connect Lancaster and Morecambe with destinations including Preston, Kendal and larger regional centres such as Manchester, and Liverpool. Direct bus routes to other large destinations such as Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle would complement long distance public transport services already in existence.

PT5: Increased Evening and Weekend Bus Services It has been noted that public transport service levels drop off significantly in the evening and at weekends. This reduces the accessibility of the main centres at these times of the day and week. Improving these services could help to boost the night-time economies of the respective centres and could further encourage modal shift from car to bus by providing a viable alternative for weekend leisure and shopping trips.

PT6: Lancaster City Centre ‘Metro-Shuttle’ This proposal would introduce a frequent, high quality public transport service that shuttles passengers around Lancaster City Centre between the main transport nodes of the rail and bus stations, the main interceptor car parks, and the main City Centre draws such as the Castle,

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

51

Shopping Centre, Town Hall and the Royal Lancaster Infirmary. This measure could be accompanied by a number of Bus Priority Measures such as one-way system contra flow lanes to improve journey times on the shuttle and to encourage City Centre users to use the service rather than private cars to travel around Lancaster. It is hoped that significant modal shift could be achieved and traffic congestion might be alleviated accordingly.

Shuttle services in Manchester and Liverpool

PT7: Lancaster City Centre Bus Routeing Review A thorough review of traffic management and bus routeing within Lancaster City Centre to ascertain if the current layout is operating efficiently or if more could be done to prioritise public transport. This measure could be undertaken as part of a comprehensive City Centre one-way system review as suggested for scheme T4 below.

PT8: Public Transport Lune Bridge Converting one of the Lune Bridges to the north of Lancaster City Centre to public transport, pedestrian and cycle use only would further reduce public transport journey times between Lancaster and Morecambe by providing effective priority. A new bridge would create a significant short-cut route for sustainable modes travelling between Lancaster and Morecambe and may encourage modal shift away from the private car. This measure would increase the attractiveness of sustainable travel without significantly removing car-borne capacity from the present level.

PT9: Heysham Bus Terminus The bus terminus in Heysham is currently located several minutes walk from the ferry port and rail station and is poorly integrated with these as a result. Relocation of the terminus would create a single integrated facility close to the other main transport nodes improving integration between modes and increasing public transport accessibility to and from Heysham Port.

PT10: Bus Rapid Transit In order to increase public transport accessibility between Lancaster and Morecambe, a BRT Route could be constructed incorporating segregated busway and dedicated priority lanes heavily enforced as bus only to ensure reliable journey times. Unlike other rapid transit modes, such as light rail, BRT is not limited to a fixed track and is therefore more versatile, although vehicles may be wholly or partially kerb guided along their routes, or may in the case of trolleybuses amass electrical power from overhead cabling.

Examples of BRT (Guided and Unguided) in Eindhoven and Richmond, Virginia

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

52

PT11: Light Rail Similar to BRT, light rail would increase public transport accessibility between Lancaster and Morecambe. Unlike BRT, light rail is a rapid transit system guided by either fully or partially segregated rails, or on-street track. Light Rail also has priority at road junctions and this therefore offers a reliable service with predictable journey times. A suggested route for a light rail system is via the current Lancaster-Morecambe Greenway cycle route following an historic rail alignment. This would provide a traffic-free route further reducing journey times but would likely hinder the operation of the successful cycle path.

PT12: Ultra-light Rail This mode also runs on fixed track but individual vehicles are much smaller and as such are more suitable for constrained routes. In addition, headways for these vehicles can be much smaller than light rail systems leading to extremely high frequency routes. Vehicles may be more conventional mini tram-trains such as the Parry People Mover, or may be new and innovative such as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) podcar vehicles.

Ultra-Light Rail Examples – Parry People Mover and PRT ‘Podcar’

PT13: Hanging Railway / Monorail Hanging Rail and Monorail systems are further alternatives to BRT or light rail. These would run along track raised on gantries and are therefore advantageous in that they do not interfere with transport systems on the ground particularly advantageous in the constrained network of Lancaster City Centre. A further advantage with these modes is that they lend themselves to automation better than other modes and may therefore be driverless if required. Infrastructure costs are considerable however, as these systems require significant investment to construct the elevated track sections.

Existing Monorail and Hanging Rail Systems Las Vegas and Wuppertal, Germany

PT14: Expansion of Demand Responsive Transport Some rural areas within the Lancaster District currently employ a demand responsive system of public transport, in which public transport provision to remote or rural areas may be booked in advance, and routes operate on a more flexible basis than in more urban areas. The number of DRT services in the study area could be increased to provide every rural settlement in the district with access to at least one DRT service increasing accessibility to the main centres and promoting modal shift away from the private car.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

53

PT15: Creation of a New Rail Station at Lancaster University Lancaster University is currently not served by rail despite it being located adjacent to the West Coast Main Line (WCML), in fact, no rail station exists between Lancaster and Preston. This scheme would see the construction of a north and south rail platform on the freight sidings at Oubeck adjacent to the University campus and out of the way of the fast services using the WCML. A stopping service between Lancaster, the University and Preston to the south could then be introduced to increase accessibility between the City Centre, the University and the south of the district.

PT16: Rail Station Facility Upgrades Passenger waiting facilities at Bare Lane, Heysham, and Morecambe stations would be upgraded to include as a minimum a safe waiting area, fully accessible platforms, and RTPI systems giving information on expected services. In addition, parking facilities could be improved at all stations within the study area including Carnforth to create Park & Ride locations serving Lancaster City Centre to further reduce dependence on the private car.

PT17: Lancaster to Morecambe Rail Signalling Improvements Capacity increases on the Lancaster to Morecambe and Heysham rail line could be achieved by installing automated signalling between Bare Lane and Morecambe. The present key and staff system allows only one train at a time to travel between Bare Lane and Morecambe and between Morecambe and Heysham and this limits aspirations to increase frequencies to Morecambe and Heysham stations from Lancaster. Automatic signalling would allow multiple trains to enter the section and could make rail travel a viable alternative in journeying between Lancaster and Morecambe due to the improved frequencies and potential clock-face timetable that could be offered.

PT18: Additional Stations on the Heysham to Morecambe Line New stations could be constructed on the section of rail line leading between Heysham and Morecambe. Potential locations for these include Middleton Road, which previously housed a station, and Abingdon Grove at which there is potential space for a new rail based Park & Ride site to Morecambe and Lancaster.

PT19: Carnforth to Leeds Timetable Review Conduct a thorough review of timetabling constraints between Carnforth and Leeds (including through trains from Lancaster and Morecambe) to attempt to introduce a clock-face timetable.

Irregular services are a major detriment to rail usage and the provision of a more regular and reliable service can promote sustainable trips.

PT20: Carnforth WCML Link Construction of a new rail chord between the Leeds/Carnforth rail line north of Carnforth, to the WCML would allow north-south WCML train services such as Tran Pennine express trains to Windermere to call at Carnforth on their way north or south. In addition, it would allow passengers from Barrow-in-Furness or Leeds to access the northbound WCML via interchange at Carnforth rather than Lancaster as at present increasing the importance of Carnforth as a rail interchange and increasing its connectivity as a result.

3.4.2

Other Schemes to Increase Connectivity O1: River Lune Bridge This scheme identifies the potential for a third traffic bridge constructed over the River Lune to ease pressure on the existing facilities and better connect the City Centre with Morecambe and the rest of the district. The bridge would be less restricted than the public transport bridge (PT*) and could be designed in such a manner to integrate with the other bridges and the City Centre one-way system as a whole. For example, this bridge could provide sustainable access across the river whilst also serving the Luneside development.

O4: Waterbus Extension The current waterbus system between Lancaster and Carnforth could be extended southwards to link with Galgate increasing connectivity with the south of the District including the University.

This scheme would primarily serve as a tourist attraction creating a leisure route from the north to the south of the District.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

3.5

Principal Problem 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lancaster City Centre Traffic Congestion

3.5.1

Traffic Management Schemes to Reduce Congestion

54

T1: Park & Ride In addition to the proposed Park & Ride site located at Junction 34 of the M6 as part of the Heysham â&#x20AC;&#x201C; M6 Link, it is suggested to create new Park & Ride sites north-west and south east of Lancaster on the A589/A683, and A6 corridors. These sites would intercept City Centre traffic and provide an alternative means of accessing Lancaster rather than the private car, alleviating congestion around the one-way system. In addition, successful Park & Ride schemes require and stimulate good public transport priority between sites and the City Centre, and control on City Centre parking. Particular sites of interest include Scale Hall (Salt Ayre Landfill site) between Morecambe and Lancaster, and the M6 Junction 33 at Galgate which could intercept traffic from south of the city.

Examples of Park & Ride in Manchester and Shrewsbury

T2: Junction Improvements There are a number of opportunities to alleviate delays and congestion at traffic signal controlled sites and these include improvements such as the revision of stage and phase timings, and changes to junction layout and geometry. The review of larger scale Urban Traffic Control (UTC) systems such as Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique (SCOOT) may further increase efficiency at signalised nodes. The benefit of this scheme would be the relative ease and low cost of implementation, although the subsequent reductions in traffic congestion from signal upgrading alone may be limited.

T4: Lancaster City Centre One-Way System Review The City Centre one-way system could undergo a major review and redesign in terms of routeing direction and priority. It is felt that the current one-way system is inefficient and is causing unnecessary congestion and delay. The review would examine the effects of a partial or total re-introduction of two-way traffic on some or all of the links, and will also examine the results of restricting some movements to public transport only. It is hoped that this will create wider benefits not only in terms of reducing traffic congestion around the City Centre but also in improving the urban environment and public realm for pedestrians and cyclists who are considered valuable City Centre users and are top of the road-user hierarchy.

T5: Congestion Charging To reduce traffic congestion in the City Centre, a congestion charging scheme similar to that in operation in London or proposed for Greater Manchester could be implemented albeit on a smaller scale. There is a range of potential congestion charging schemes from large scale cordon charges to smaller area based zones but all are designed to raise revenue to fund sustainable transport options and to further increase the modal share of these compared to the private car.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

55

Congestion Charging in London

T6: Junction 33 Relocation Owing to pedestrian demands and the restrained geometry at the Galgate crossroads, traffic on the A6 northbound often backs up to the M6 at Junction 33 during the AM Peak. This issue is stifling development opportunities south of the city. To combat this, a series of options for relocating the existing M6 Junction 33 or adding extra on and off slip roads north of Galgate are proposed to relieve congestion. These options are intended to be linked to a large Park & Ride site located adjacent to the new junction to intercept city bound traffic (see also Scheme T1).

T7: Western Relief Road In addition to the M6 to Heysham Link Road proposed north of Lancaster City Centre, a western relief route running between Junction 33 of the M6 and the A683 east of Heysham has been pursued for a number of decades. This route would cross the River Lune to the south west of Lancaster and act as a southern bypass for the city, however owing to prohibitive environmental and financial costs, has been shelved in favour of the northern option.

T8: Freight/Servicing of the Retail Centre The introduction of a Freight Consolidation Centre could be used to reduce the number of freight vehicles on the one-way system in Lancaster City Centre. Haulage and servicing vehicles would unload at a point some distance outside of the centre and the inward flow of goods would then be rationalised to a smaller number of large vehicles thereby reducing roadspace usage and hence congestion. This scheme could also be used to promote the use of environmentally sustainable vehicles within the City Centre.

T9: Lancaster City Centre Co-ordinated Home Delivery Service The requirement for shoppers to drive into the City Centre could be dramatically reduced given the option of a co-ordinated home delivery service which could potentially be based at the Freight Consolidation Centre identified above. Instead of collecting shopping themselves, groceries, clothes and electrical goods could be delivered directly to the shopperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home. This proposal would have added value for mobility impaired members of society who may find travelling into Lancaster difficult, and could free-up storage/warehousing space for public realm enhancements.

T10: Bicycle Couriers Documentation or other light goods could be transported via bicycle instead of motor vehicle as part of the freight strategy for Lancaster City Centre. This would reduce congestion and improve the environment around the busy one-way system.

T11: Car Club/Car Sharing Scheme Single occupancy of vehicles could be reduced by encouraging local employers to sign up to a car club or other car sharing scheme. These schemes provide motor transport but ensure that seats within the vehicles are better utilised by encouraging colleagues who live in similar areas to car share and provide lifts for each other. This can reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any one time and hopefully minimise congestion as a result. It may also reduce the need for commuters to own and keep a car at home.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

56

T12: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes To complement the promotion of car clubs and other sharing schemes, existing carriageway could be reallocated to provide priority to vehicles with more than one occupant. This has the potential to further decrease the number of vehicles on the one-way system in Lancaster at any one time and thereby reduce congestion. Owing to the narrow carriageway on the majority of approaches to the City Centre, the feasibility of implementation is limited.

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in the UK

T13: Interceptor Car Parks As part of a wider Parking Strategy for the area, large scale interceptor car parks are suggested for strategic locations adjacent to the main north and south entry points for the City Centre.

These would capture a significant proportion of the traffic before it enters the main one-way system and hence remove it from the crowded network reducing congestion. It is also to be hoped that this traffic reduction could be significant enough to permit the reallocation of carriageway space on the main one-way system in support of public transport and other sustainable modes. The concept of interceptor car parks could also be extended to locations such as Morecambe Promenade. This would reduce the volume of traffic using the front, providing the opportunity for roadspace reallocation and public realm enhancements.

T14: Coach Parking Strategy A specific coach parking strategy would be drawn up for Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe Town Centre. This would allocate and define bay parking and routeing for coaches at these destinations to integrate with accommodation and tourist site locations. Potentially coach facilities could be incorporated into Park & Ride sites, thereby reducing coach penetration into the City Centre.

T15: Signage and Information Strategy A comprehensive signing and information strategy is recommended for the study area in its entirety including a review of current routeing, and signage to key car parks, Park & Ride sites, Public Transport Interchanges and tourist attractions. This should direct drivers to the most appropriate car parking and remove any unnecessary car journeys caused due to uncertainty over routeing or confusion over the various one-way systems in Lancaster and Morecambe.

3.5.2

Other Schemes to Reduce Congestion C2: Park & Cycle As an extension of the earlier mentioned Park & Ride scheme (T1), Park & Cycle could be introduced at specific sites to provide a convenient parking place at which bicycles may be hired or purchased. These locations would need to integrate with cycle infrastructure and existing rights of way so that visitors may make full use of the countryside and attractions within the district. Subject to the success of these schemes, showering and changing, and bicycle retail and maintenance facilities could be provided to further enhance the offer.

O2: Travel Plan Monitoring An example of good practice in promoting sustainable travel and minimising private car trips is through travel plan monitoring. This includes providing sufficient resources to ensure that travel plans for new developments are strictly adhered to and car-borne trips are minimised as part of the planning process. Going forward, it is proposed that district-wide Travel Plan Co-ordinator

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

57

meetings are facilitated and attended by public transport providers, Lancaster City Council and Lancashire County Council as the highway authority. This will allow for the exchange of good practice and the development of joint initiatives.

O5: Heysham Rail Freight Terminal The creation of a large rail freight terminal adjacent to the Morecambe to Heysham rail line and port facilities would allow a higher proportion of freight headed for Heysham port to be transported across the UK by rail avoiding congestion problems on the road network especially around Lancaster City Centre. The freight facility could then be integrated with the port facilities for ease of transfer between the rail terminal and the ferry.

O6: Morecambe Masterplan The production of a comprehensive masterplan for the Morecambe area focusing on Urban Realm, Transport, Property, and Environmental improvements is strongly recommended as this may be used to inform planning and future development policy for future years.

3.6

Principal Problem 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Poor Pedestrian and Cyclist Environment and Public Realm

3.6.1

Schemes to Improve the Pedestrian Environment T3: Traffic Calming The introduction of traffic calming to reduce speeds in the centres of Lancaster, Morecambe, and Carnforth is expected to have a wide positive effect on the pedestrian environment and a reduction in the number of collisions. Traffic calming does, however, lead to longer journey times for motorists and careful consideration must be given to the location of this tool to ensure the greatest success.

Traffic Calming and Public Realm Treatment

P1: Townscape Improvements The townscape of several locations within the study area, such as Lancaster and Morecambe centres, could be greatly improved by the introduction of surface treatments to the carriageway at crossing points and side road junctions. In addition, improvements to lighting, de-cluttering of the footways and the introduction of central refuge islands for pedestrians would considerably improve conditions for pedestrians.

P2: Upgrade Existing Pedestrian Crossing Points Furthermore, existing pedestrian crossing points may be improved by providing dropped kerbs, tactile paving, and other associated upgrades to quality at controlled and uncontrolled crossing points on strategic routes. These improvements could be accommodated within the existing minor works programme.

P3: Improve Pedestrian Permeability in Lancaster and Morecambe Appropriate measures should be undertaken to increase permeability for pedestrians within the major centres in the study area. This will include minimising the severance effects of the oneway system, reducing traffic speeds, and providing more crossing points. Other issues which may require review with a view to improving conditions for pedestrians include road widths, traffic flows, and composition of traffic.

P4: Traffic-Free Lancaster City Centre As an option for consideration, vehicular traffic could be removed entirely from Lancaster City Centre by severing all through-routes to create a dedicated traffic-free zone.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

58

P5: Improve Pedestrian Access to Car Parks This option aims to make car parking attractive and accessible to the full range of users including those with mobility impairments. This would be implemented in conjunction with a full signage and gateway parking strategy.

P6: 20mph City Centre Speed Limit As part of a comprehensive traffic calming strategy within Lancaster City Centre, it is suggested that a speed limit of 20mph could be introduced with associated shared space or traffic calming measures as enforcement. This would increase pedestrian and cyclist safety as statistically, speed is a major factor in a high proportion of road deaths, but would lead to increased delay for motorists. However, this would conflict with the role of the A6 as the motorway diversion route.

P7: Dalton Square Enhancements As a further proposal to improve the pedestrian environment in Lancaster, it is suggested that the traffic management and the public realm around Dalton Square could be redesigned to create a shared use pedestrian friendly environment. The square would be partially or totally closed to traffic, which may have repercussions for the main one-way system routeing, but which would allow one of Lancasterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most historical landmarks to be upgraded as an area of quality urban realm in favour of pedestrians.

O3: Additional Home Zone Schemes Previous Home Zone schemes nationwide have proved successful in reducing car trips through populated residential areas. It is hoped that the introduction of new schemes throughout the Vision area could encourage other communities to follow suit. Home Zones promote a shareduse feel with traffic ceding priority to pedestrians and other road users thereby creating a safer environment. Other benefits of home zones include increased social interaction and the creation of a more attractive street-scene.

Examples of Home Zone Schemes

3.6.2

Schemes to Improve the Environment for Cyclists C1: Introduce Cycling Facilities The introduction of additional cycle advance stop lines, Toucan crossing facilities, and high quality secure cycle parking facilities to all areas throughout the district would greatly improve conditions for cyclists and encourage use of what is a significant minority mode. In addition, the general maintenance and upgrading of both on and off-street cycleways would further improve conditions.

Improved Cycling facilities

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

59

C3: Cycle Signage Review Building on the work and status attached to the CDT and as part of a wider signage and information strategy, signage specifically targeting cyclists could be reviewed to ensure full coverage on and to existing routes. Directional signage, route waymarkers, fingerposts, and links to the National Cycle Network would all be included within this scheme.

C4: Introduce Cycle-Hire Scheme To further encourage cycling as a viable mode, a cycle-hire scheme could be implemented.

These schemes (such as Velib ’Freedom’ Bike in Paris) include creating special pick-up and drop-off points from which bicycles may be hired for a specific period. Recent well devised schemes have proved highly successful in encouraging modal shift towards cycling.

C5: Introduce Cycle Rickshaws To introduce cycle based taxi transport for a fraction of the price of motorised taxi services could encourage a further reduction in car borne transport and improve conditions for cyclists.

These services could be permitted to route through pedestrianised areas and could consequently prove a quick and popular way of travelling around the district avoiding congested roads.

C6: Provide Greater Security on Existing Segregated Cycle Routes Security is often a large detractor from the popular use of off-road cycle facilities since the routes are often isolated and poorly lit. This can encourage anti-social or criminal behaviour and the mode choice suffers as a result – especially deterring the more vulnerable cyclists. The provision of measures to improve personal security on cycle routes by improving lighting, thinning vegetation, and adding CCTV and extra policing units, would therefore aid in encouraging those less confident in cycling as a viable mode to convert or indeed, persist with cycling as a mode of transport.

3.7

Coarse Appraisal In order to narrow down the strategy, each scheme identified in the long list was assessed against the Coarse Appraisal. Initially, the schemes were grouped into the following categories:

Public Transport schemes; Traffic Management and Congestion Relief Schemes; Pedestrian schemes; Cycling schemes; and Other schemes.

The table, contained in Appendix B, is divided into 5 main appraisal factors. The first section scores each scheme based on the objectives of Lancaster & Morecambe Vision. The second section scores against a selection of appropriate New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) objectives. The final three sections provide an indication of Deliverability, Cost and Person Movement Impact. An appraisal guidance note is also contained in Appendix B, which relates to the scoring of each scheme on each these criteria.

The Coarse Appraisal process identified a number of schemes for progression to the Option Development stage. These are as follows:

PT1: Red Routes and other Bus Priority Measures; PT2: Integrated Public Transport Ticketing; PT5: Increased Evening and Weekend Bus Services; PT6: Lancaster City Centre Metro-Shuttle; PT8: Lune Bridge; PT10: Bus Rapid Transit; PT12: Ultra-light Rail; PT13: Hanging Railway/Monorail; PT16: Rail Station Facility Upgrades; PT17: Lancaster to Morecambe Rail Signalling Improvements T1: Park & Ride; T4: Lancaster City Centre One-Way System Review; T5: Congestion Charging and Public Transport Upgrades; T6: Junction 33 Relocation/Modification T11: Car Club/Car Sharing Scheme;

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

T13: Interceptor Car Parks; T14: Coach Parking Strategy; T15: Signage and Information Strategy; P1: Townscape Improvements; C1: Cycle Facility Improvements; C2: Park & Cycle; C6: Enhanced Security on Existing Segregated Cycle Routes; O2: Travel Plan Monitoring; and O6: Morecambe Masterplan.

This list includes both low and high intervention schemes, referencing a multitude of examples from the UK and further afield, which should be developed further. In addition, several schemes are similar and complementary in terms of theme and aim and as such, some of the measures noted on the above list have been grouped into a single scheme. The short-list presented in Table 3.2 notes the most significant interventions in terms of planning and implementation, and represents the final list of measures to be progressed to the Option Development stage.

Table 3.2: Selected Schemes 1. Red Routes and other Bus Priority Measures; 2. Integrated Public Transport Ticketing; 3. Lancaster City Centre Metro Shuttle; 4. Public Transport Lune Bridge; 5. Rapid Transit; 6. Rail Station Facility Upgrades; 7. Lancaster to Morecambe Rail Signalling Improvements; 8. Park & Ride; 9. Lancaster City Centre One-Way System Review; 10. Congestion Charging; 11. Junction 33 Relocation/Modification 12. Interceptor Car Parks; 13. Signage and Information Strategy; 14. Dalton Square Enhancements; 15. Morecambe Promenade Improvements; 16. Cycle Improvements; 17. Coach Parking Strategy; and 18. Morecambe Town Centre Masterplan.

60

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

4

Scheme Development

4.1

61

Introduction In this section, a final set of consolidated projects earmarked for further development will be described and analysed. These proposals will, in some form, include the majority of the seventeen schemes recommended under the Coarse Appraisal process described previously.

Whilst all of these schemes are demonstrably important and representative of good value in terms of benefit, deliverability, cost and person movement impact, it is considered impractical to develop each of these in isolation for the purposes of this Vision and Strategy report. Instead, this reduced set of projects incorporating the key principles of the above schemes will be described in more detail here. Of these projects, six are specifically targeted at a certain area or alignment with the aim of providing a vision of a system as it might be in the future. The remainder are then general district wide schemes and represent examples of best practice used elsewhere in the UK and wider world. The final set of projects is shown below: 1. Rapid Transit/Rail Strategy; 2. Integrated ‘New Generation’ Park & Ride and Interceptor Car Parking Strategy; 3. Accessibility to the South (Galgate issue); 4. Lancaster City Centre ‘One-Way’ System Review; 5. Morecambe Town Centre Improvements and Masterplan; and 6. Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charging.

Along with an outline of the philosophy and concept of each scheme, this section will provide greater detail on how each proposal may be realised. This will include a review of barriers to development and estimated timescales and costs, and will present a vision of how each scheme will function upon its completion towards the end of the projected timescale.

Note: It should be noted that this chapter seeks to progress the schemes noted above to a level of detail at which specific design constraints could be considered further. As such many of the conclusions presented here are based upon site observations and desktop study alone and it should not be assumed that the assertions are based upon detailed design and/or detailed junction or traffic modelling.

4.2

Rapid Transit/Rail Strategy A key theme identified in both the Public Consultations and the Coarse Appraisal process, is the need for improved accessibility between Morecambe, Lancaster City Centre and Lancaster University. This is a key objective and a priority of many local residents who travel between the locations for the purposes of work, retail or leisure. It is clear that, at present, the two urban centres are not functioning as a single commercial and social entity despite their proximity and potentially complementary economic offers.

Whilst some road infrastructure work is planned that should improve access between Lancaster and Morecambe, not least the Northern Relief Road linking the M6 Junction 34 with Heysham, it is clear that little benefit will be gained by improving accessibility by private vehicle since traditionally extra road capacity is quickly filled by additional car trips. Instead, it is proposed to create some form of fast, efficient, and frequent public transport between the locations.

There are several options for this system, both in terms of the alignment it follows, and the chosen mode itself. This section will review the list of choices for rapid transit modes, highlighting a preference based upon the constraints of the location. It will also review the various alignment options and highlight potential phasing strategies to ensure that each stage delivers a rational functioning system in its own right.

4.2.1

Rapid Transit Mode Options A summary revision of the benefits and disbenefits of the various rapid transit modes are presented in the following table: -

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Table 4.1: Comparison of Rapid Transit Modes Option Advantages Quality Bus Corridors Requires minimum level of (QBCs)/‘Red Routes’ new infrastructure as routes follow existing alignments – cost is roughly £200,000 per vehicle and £1.4million per km of bus lane.

Does not necessarily require new vehicles as current buses can operate on Quality Bus Corridors.

Creates extra capacity for public transport by reducing the roadspace for the private car, potentially adding environmental benefit.

Can result in greater reliability in bus journey time.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Ultra-Light Rail

Uses diesel-electric or fully electric trolley-bus technology to reduce carbon emissions – cost for ‘FTR Streetcar’ is roughly £300,000.

May be fully segregated with kerb or optical guidance, or may run on-street for sections providing flexibility.

Average Cost roughly £1.4million per km of route.

Guidance and electrical cabling systems are less complex and cheaper than for LRT. Favourable journey time advantage compared with standard bus corridors.

Limited infrastructure requirements (when compared to monorail or hanging railway).

Regular and reliable journey times.

Can be run below ground, at grade or elevated.

Can be run on existing rail, new segregated track, or onstreet.

Can be linked to Park & Ride schemes and integrated with other modes.

Small and lightweight allowing them to run in much more constrained environments than LRT.

62

Disadvantages Bus lanes and Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD) at traffic signals can only be used at certain locations along the route.

Priority measures are less effective in highly constrained locations such as Lancaster City Centre.

Lack of physical segregation can lead to high levels of bus lane violation, especially in congested conditions.

Improvements to journey time are marginal compared with segregated modes.

Systems lack the perceived quality of fixed-rail alternatives.

Can still be subject to delays in road traffic if running on-street in constrained locations.

Requires significant investment to lay tracks and signalling which can lead to funding problems.

Cost is roughly £14million per km of new route required (based on the estimated cost of a similar scheme in Merseyside).

At grade operation subject to delays/accidents at intersections with other traffic.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Hanging Railway

Advantages Limited infrastructure requirements (when compared to monorail or hanging railway).

Regular and reliable journey times.

Can be run below ground, at grade or elevated.

Can be run on existing rail, new segregated track, or onstreet.

Can be linked to Park & Ride schemes and integrated with other modes.

Greater capacity than buses.

Fully electric and therefore less polluting than bus based modes.

Perception of quality associated with the mode.

Monorail

Operates above ground level, thereby avoiding interference with other modes.

Avoids traffic congestion.

Ideal where available land is limited.

Quiet technology.

Some schemes are driverless.

Lends itself to a flagship image for the Lancaster District.

No collisions possible.

Can develop tourism potential.

Seamless journey guaranteed.

Operates above ground level, thereby avoiding interference with other modes.

Avoids traffic congestion.

Ideal where available land is limited.

Quiet technology.

Some schemes are driverless.

Lends itself to a flagship image for Lancaster.

Can develop tourism potential.

No collisions possible.

Seamless and high speed journey guaranteed.

63

Disadvantages Investment in infrastructure great when compared to bus based solutions – cost is roughly £14million per km of new route sourced as above.

At grade operation subject to delays/accidents at intersections with other traffic.

Large size of the vehicles leads to operating difficulties in highly constrained locations.

High capital cost can lead to funding problems in the absence of a coherent multi-modal Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid and strategy.

High degree of visual intrusion from overhead infrastructure.

Expensive technology leads to a very high capital cost and potential funding problems as a result.

Cost is estimated at around £20million per km based on the cost of the Schwebebahn extensions in Wuppertal, Germany.

High degree of visual intrusion from overhead infrastructure.

Expensive technology leads to a very high capital cost and potential funding problems as a result.

Cost is estimated at around £20million per km sourced as above.

Faber Maunsell

4.2.2

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

64

Preferred Mode The coarse appraisal analysis reviewed the modes mentioned above in terms of their correspondence against Lancaster & Morecambe Vision Objectives, NATA Objectives, Deliverability, Cost and Person Movement Impact criteria. It was determined that with the exception of Light Rail, all of the modes should proceed to the shortlist of schemes. This was due to the fact that the highly constrained nature of Lancaster City Centre, and potential corridors between Morecambe, Lancaster and Lancaster University may prohibit the free and easy movement of these vehicles. In addition, it is expected that, although demand for the route would be well distributed throughout the day, it would not be such to warrant a frequent tram-sized vehicle, buses or equivalent, being adequately sized to carry the anticipated demand.

The conclusion of this analysis would seem to be that different alignments between Lancaster, Morecambe and Lancaster University each favour different modes depending on the specific constraints. The strategy therefore, should include the potential for a combination of interventions including QBCs for the existing bus public transport, BRT or Ultra-light Rail systems for the main spine route between the locations, and in the longer term, some form of elevated rail owing to ground constraints and has the potential to follow alignments unavailable to other modes such as above the canal between Lancaster and the Lancaster University.

In terms of a headline rapid transit system which may be considered a flagship scheme for the Lancaster and Morecambe Vision however, a BRT network is potentially the most effective compared to other modes in terms of its relative cost and deliverability. This BRT system could run high frequency, high speed services between Morecambe and Lancaster on segregated busway, serve Lancaster City Centre on-street, and then diverge with branches serving Lancaster University and the proposed Park & Ride at Junction 34 of the M6 integrating with the Heysham to M6 Link Road scheme.

4.2.3

Routeing Options Figure 4.1 shows a schematic representation of the large range of potential alignments for rapid transit systems within the Lancaster District. It may be seen that these vary in suitability for a range of modes with existing heavy rail infrastructure best served by Tram-Train style Ultra-light rail, Canal and elevated alignments best served by Monorail or hanging railway, and road and ground alignments favouring BRT. As mentioned previously, the main thrust of the routeing is to create direct links between Morecambe and Lancaster City Centre, with branches to Junction 34 and Lancaster University, and possible further extensions to locations such as Heysham.

Figure 4.1: Potential Rapid Transit Modes (Schematic)

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

65

In terms of routeing for flagship rapid transit scheme using the preferred mode of BRT, it is thought most beneficial to take advantage of an existing and underused alignment between Lancaster and Morecambe â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Greenway pedestrian and cycle route. This alignment (shown in the following images) previously served as an alternative direct rail route between the two settlements and as such is straight and for the most part, wide enough to accommodate a twoway BRT system and provision for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, this would allow the system to serve several desirable locations adjacent to the Greenway including the industrial park at White Lund and a potential new Park & Ride site off the A683 at Salt Ayre.

The Lancaster -Morecambe Greenway and a visualisation of rapid transit on this alignment

A major advantage of using this route is that it already passes under significant barriers such as major roads and provides the potential for a delay-free transit. At some locations, such as that shown below, where bridges are too low for BRT to pass underneath, new bridging work may be required, however the scale of this would be much smaller than the significant carriageway works associated with running the system on-street between Morecambe and Lancaster.

New underbridge crossing the A683 Lancaster and Morecambe By-Pass

A further advantage of the Greenway is that it provides the space to include new infrastructure such as overhead cabling for a trolleybus system. Adding this infrastructure to carriageways would cause significant delays on the highway network and consequent expense.

At the Morecambe end of the Greenway, it is thought to be desirable to integrate the BRT scheme with proposed enhancements to Morecambeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s townscape and promenade areas, forming a major part of an area Masterplan (see Chapter 4.6). For this reason, although it will dilute the frequency, it is proposed to run the system on-street along the promenade as part of a town centre loop. From the Greenway, the vehicles could exit at Schola Green Lane running parallel with the existing rail line and bridging this at the junction with the B5231 Lancaster Road. The system could then run on-street along Euston Road and Central Drive serving the rail station and shopping centre in the process before turning onto the A589 Marine Road to serve the promenade. The loop could be completed by reaccessing Euston Road from the north, either via Queen Street or perhaps more feasibly via Lord Street and Thornton Road if space is not available. Images of potential routeing in Morecambe are shown overleaf:

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Central Drive

Marine Road

66

Euston Road

Figure 4.2 shows the potential routeing options within Morecambe.

The next challenge for the rapid transit system would be in crossing the River Lune at the eastern end of the Greenway. Current traffic levels would appear to prohibit the use of either of the existing bridges even with the use of bus lanes. As a result, there may be the requirement to construct a new Lune Bridge at a location west of the current bridges. This is envisaged as being BRT, pedestrian, and cyclist only, but in light of the need to service Luneside West in Lancaster, there remains the potential to allow some access traffic on the link depending on capacity constraints, and providing that ways may be found to mitigate and restrict its use.

Allowing development servicing to use the bridge would also have the benefit of allowing some element of developer funding for the new link which would help in the construction of a suitable business case.

The proposal to create a new public transport bridge is in keeping with previous proposals to create a new cross-river link for buses, which made use of St. Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Quay to connect services with the new Lancaster Bus Station. Whilst this has merit, it may be advantageous for the new link to join Lune Road West as this would take the vehicles down past Lancaster Station connecting with Meeting House Lane. The service could then join the main Lancaster City Centre Gyratory and serve the bus station at this point.

Potential site of new Bridge

Lune Road West

Meeting House Lane

A new River Lune Bridge downstream of the Carlisle Bridge, between Salt Ayre and Luneside, forms an essential element of the vision for a new rapid transit link between Lancaster and Morecambe. The images overleaf show how the Bridge could look and could potentially provide a solution to accessing the Luneside East and West area, which is currently difficult and requires users to circuit the gyratory for access. In order to retain a level of reliability and priority to public transport, this consideration should be limited to HGVs/delivery vehicles.

New River Lune Bridge

New Lune Bridge (incorporating HGV Access)

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

67

Should it be considered appropriate that a new River Lune Bridge be open to HGV users accessing the Luneside area, it could provide a means of assisting in funding the design and implementation of the structure.

A viable BRT system proposed for the area must, by necessity, serve Lancaster City Centre.

Due to current congestion problems around this one-way system, it is likely that BRT would be accompanied by complementary bus priority around this section using either with or contra-flow bus lanes to ensure seamless travel. The issue of traffic management around Lancaster City Centre is further explored later in this document.

Figure 4.3 shows potential route alignments over the River Lune and around the Lancaster one-way system.

At a point around the gyratory, it is envisaged that the service would split into northbound vehicles serving the proposed Junction 34 Park & Ride, and southbound vehicles serving Lancaster University. There is the potential for Junction 34 serving buses to make use of the Lune-Valley Ramble path at least in one-direction as width constraints may dictate. This would be advantageous if it could be achieved as it would reduce the amount of roadspace required for BRT on the busy A683 into Lancaster City Centre and would negate the need for turnaround space at the Park & Ride site. Instead, the bus could continue to Halton looping back onto the A683 and travel back towards Lancaster City Centre on-street serving the Park & Ride at Junction 34.

Lune Valley Ramble Route

Aqueduct seen from Lune Valley Ramble

The branch serving Lancaster University would potentially travel on-street along the A6 serving the University and any new (or relocated as explored later in this document) Junction 33 linked Park & Ride.

For the final leg of the BRT journey, the two branches could merge back in Lancaster to offer a frequent service back towards Morecambe via the new Lune Bridge and the Lancaster Morecambe Greenway. There is also potential to extend the system further between Morecambe and Heysham via the A589 although it may be potentially difficult to justify a business case, taking any planned improvements in rail services between Heysham and Morecambe into account.

Figure 4.4 shows a plan of the preferred routeing for the BRT system and Figure 4.5 identifies a number of constraints of the route between Lancaster and Morecambe.

It should be noted that the identification of the Greenway as a potential rapid transit route does not include the removal of either pedestrians or cyclists along this corridor. In any further development of this proposal, it will be essential to facilitate improvements to the alignment to ensure that any rapid transit scheme co-exists with safe pedestrian and cycle facilities.

The time saving advantages of a BRT system over existing modes for travellers in Lancaster and Morecambe during the AM Peak using the routes described above is estimated in the following Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Faber Maunsell

4.2.4

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

69

Complementary Rail Upgrades and Enhancements Whilst it is envisaged that in the longer term, a large proportion of the trips between Lancaster and Morecambe would transfer to the new Bus Rapid Transit system proposed above, it is clear that existing modes of travel will also have a part to play in the overall strategy for the District.

With this in mind, a package of measures is further proposed for the rail link between the two destinations, Heysham Port and Carnforth in the north.

At ten minutes duration, the rail journey between Lancaster and Morecambe is clearly beneficial over other modes, however as has been previously discussed, the lack of a clock-face timetable for this service is seen as a barrier to its development. In addition, a general untidy and poorly maintained image pervades the facilities especially at Heysham and Bare Lane stations and this is a further detractor from the viability of the current service.

In response to this, and to complement the direct rapid transit routes described, it is proposed that a substantial programme of works should be undertaken to improve the image of the five station facilities, especially those on the Lancaster to Heysham Port line. These works should include improved accessibility, passenger waiting facilities, passenger information systems including timetabling and RTPI systems, and car parking including expanding the Park & Ride facilities available at Bare Lane and Morecambe.

Consistent with the above suggestions is the proposal to create station development zones around the main rail stations in the district. As discussed in Chapter 2.8, these provide the opportunity to upgrade the areas surrounding the stations within the District to a high standard in terms of safety, security and quality. This is in recognition of the fact that the areas surrounding stations are often heavily influenced by the existence of the facilities and vice versa and consequently the upgrading of one would be expected to have direct repercussions on the other. For this reason, it is considered vital when upgrading rail infrastructure to consider accessibility from the immediate locality, and to promote sustainable development around the station hubs, in addition to increased transport linkages and the overall quality of the facility.

Images of Morecambe Rail Station To address the timetabling issues and the lack of a clear regular timed rail service it is proposed to affect an upgrade of the antiquated signalling between Bare Lane and Morecambe. This would involve laying cabling between the two locations and down to Heysham which would allow for signals in the adjacent blocks to be linked and negate the need for an older style â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;key and staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; system. The effect of this would be to enhance capacity on the line by allowing multiple trains to be on the same line section (including boosting capacity on the single tracked section between Heysham Port and Morecambe) and allowing a more regular service to run as a result. It is envisaged that a thirty minute frequency rail service could shuttle passengers between Lancaster and Morecambe with a vastly improved proportion continuing to Heysham.

It is recommended that the station facility upgrading work be undertaken as an early win for rail passengers within the first five year phase of the strategy as it represents an easily observable step change in the quality of service. Given that the signalling and capacity upgrading work is expected to require a greater investment and consequent lead in time, this scheme is proposed for the second of the five year phases with an ultimately delivery deadline within ten years.

In summer 2008, Network Rail will publish the Lancashire and Cumbria Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for the Region. Through this process, Network Rail seeks to balance capacity,

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

70

passenger and freight demand, operational performance and cost, to address the requirements of funders and stakeholders. In this respect, it is understood that a TAS proposal for two additional services on the Leeds-Morecambe line is being considered for inclusion by Network Rail. Such a service enhancement increases the feasibility of rail as a mode of transport for work and leisure purposes.

4.2.5

Phasing In creating the core Rapid Transit route for Lancaster and Morecambe, consideration must be given to the phasing of construction. It is essential that phases be delivered so that a coherent and functional system is provided at all times. This will allow the cost of the system to be split over a number of years and will allow funding for each ease phase to be sought independently, aiding the securing of finances.

Owing to relief on Caton Road between Junction 34 of the M6 and Lancaster City Centre, afforded by the Heysham to M6 Link Road, an early quick win is the provision of Bus Priority Measures on the approach to Lancaster City Centre. This is likely to include bus lanes, which allows buses to bypass queues of traffic and can provide benefits for cyclists and taxis and could include other measures such as bus gates or pre-signals to provide priority at junctions.

Considering the BRT system and other proposals above, the route would appear to lend itself to seven distinct stages with varying cost and development constraints. These are:

Enhanced bus priority on the key radial routes to Lancaster (Caton Road and Morecambe Road (A683) and on Greaves Road/South Road (A6); Direct BRT link between Morecambe and Lancaster rail stations via the Lancaster and Morecambe Greenway, White Lund Industrial Estate, Salt Ayre Park & Ride, and a new Lune Bridge; Improvement to rail signals at Bare Lane station allowing the introduction of a clock-face rail timetable and increased service levels between Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham; Creation of loops around Morecambe and Lancaster centres serving the major facilities, such as the shopping core, Morecambe Promenade and Lancaster Town Hall; Extension to M6 Junction 34 via the A683 serving a proposed Park & Ride; Extension from Lancaster City Centre to Lancaster University and proposed Park & Ride at relocated Junction 33 (north of Galgate); and Final extensions utilising the Lune Valley Ramble cycleway, or serving the West End in Morecambe could then be undertaken after the four core stages have been completed.

In terms of implementing a phased vision over the next 20 year period, the following three phase timescales have been assumed. Phase One: 0 to 5 years; Phase Two: 5 to 15 years; Phase Three 10 to 20 years. This allows for a substantial overlap within the second two phases in acknowledgement of the operational conditions in securing funding and beginning construction.

It is envisaged that, within this three phase strategy, only the first of the seven stages noted above is expected within phase one although substantial early construction work could begin on the improvements to the Greenway to incorporate BRT specifications alongside pedestrian and cycle facilities in this period. The majority of the strategy would then occur within the second phase with the extensions to Junction 34, the University, and Morecambe West End occurring in the third phase.

4.2.6

Costing In order to gauge the order of cost of the BRT system described above, guidance has been received from ‘First Group’, the constructors of the ‘StreetCar’ bus-based rapid transit systems in place in York and proposed for a number of locations across the UK. These vehicles are diesel powered but are easily convertible to more economically friendly fuel should it become available. The buses are 18.7m long articulated, and each unit can carry a total of 100 passengers with 53 of those seated.

‘First’ implies in their ‘FTR’ promotional material that each vehicle would cost approximately £300,000, and busway (including priority) would cost £1.4million per kilometre on average. For an 8 kilometre route (such as a direct route between Lancaster and Morecambe) it is predicted that 15 buses would be required and the total cost for this ‘StreetCar’ based service would therefore be in the region of £15.7 million.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

71

Whilst a more advanced BRT system with guidance or overhead electrical feed would undoubtedly cost more than this figure, the total cost for this mode is substantially less than that required for light rail systems such as the Metrolink system in Manchester. These modes can cost up to £2 million per vehicle and up to £20 million per km of track laid requiring around £180 million for a similar rapid transit system (assuming only 10 vehicles would be required).

4.2.7

Conclusion To conclude, a 20 year vision and strategy has been outlined for Lancaster and Morecambe in terms of rapid transit modes. Whilst this strategy includes elements of bus priority and upgrades to existing rail facilities and infrastructure, the basis of the vision is the construction of a new bus-based Rapid Transit system connecting Lancaster, Morecambe and Lancaster University. The justification for this selection is clear when one considers the versatility of this mode in a constrained environment with segregated bus-way and on-street bus-lane running possible and easily integrated with other modes of transport.

The strategy outlined above emphasises the importance of the Lancaster-Morecambe Greenway alignment for the purposes of future Rapid Transit. It is believed to be vital that this link is preserved and protected for this purpose given the fact that, once lost, historic rail alignments, with associated infrastructure, are near impossible to restore. It is also worth noting that, once preserved, the exact rapid transit mode running on the alignment has potential to be upgraded to higher level light rail, hanging rail, or monorail transit in future years.

Whilst this strategy has sought to identify preferred modes and alignments, it is important to note that this has not been informed by land ownership information, utilities infrastructure, tracking etc, which is essential to provide a clear strategy in this respect. Therefore it is recommended that further studies are commissioned to define and protect favoured alignments from development.

Rapid Transit/Rail Strategy - Implications on the Transport Vision and Strategy Economy – The provision of an integrated Rapid Transit system will provide a significant boost to the image and perception of the District.

Air Quality and the Environment – Developing a strong Rapid Transit Network will provide a feasible alternative to the private car and make a significant contribution to improving the air quality and the environment, particularly in Lancaster City Centre.

Accessibility – The attraction of the system is that of a strong core rail and complementary rapid transit network with regular services and quick journey times, providing a strong alternative to that of the private car.

Quality of Life – Subject to introducing a seamless and viable alternative to the private car, the scheme will reduce frustrations associated with journey time unreliability.

Congestion – Both schemes are designed to reduce the volume of traffic on the District’s roads and provide access to the key attractors/generators in the District.

4.3

Park & Ride and Interceptor Car Parking Strategy The coarse appraisal of potential schemes for application within the Lancaster District highlighted the need for and benefit of a comprehensive Park & Ride strategy in the Lancaster and Morecambe area. These schemes are designed to better integrate the private car mode with public transport systems outside of busy town and City Centres to intercept traffic and reduce congestion. Park & Ride is especially important for rural areas where good access to public transport is not universally available or economically viable.

The Park & Ride concept explored in this section represents a step-change in quality from the currently understood definition and, as explained below, is envisaged to integrate several functions into one amenity with the sole purpose of reducing car-borne trips into the heavily congested Lancaster City Centre.

The strategy is also designed to integrate rail, bus and rapid transit modes with high quality Park & Ride sites located along key alignments of each of these modes. In addition, the option of integrating Park & Ride with proposals for revised Junctions 33 and 34 of the M6 to the north and south of Lancaster respectively are explored in this section.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

72

Finally, the strategy will also include the provision of interceptor car parking locations to both the north and south of the City Centre. These facilities, which may more correctly be classed as ‘Park & Walk’ sites, will nevertheless include several of the features of the modern Park & Ride locations noted here and, as such, are an integral part of the scheme.

Park & Ride Schemes in Shrewsbury and Basingstoke

4.3.1

‘New Generation’ Park & Ride In the majority of Park & Ride schemes introduced within the UK, most consist of a simple car parking arrangement in which a vehicle may be left at a location and a transfer made onto a frequent public transport shuttle service between the Park & Ride site and the destination – often a congested City Centre or town centre. Prices are often, although not always, integrated so that the user, need only pay once to park and travel onwards via the public transport mode.

In the case of the Lancaster District, however, the vision for Park & Ride involves a more comprehensive and fully integrated function for each potential location.

Each Park & Ride site is envisaged to become a multi-use location with a selection of the following functions:

Each site would be a high quality public transport stop on a wider route or network of routes.

The large Park & Ride sites in particular could be integrated with the Rapid Transit strategy connecting the locations with key destinations such as Morecambe, Lancaster City Centre and Lancaster University; The strategic sites (i.e. those located at junctions 33 and 34 of the M6) could be designed to incorporate coach parking turnaround/facilities with a view to reducing the coach penetration of Lancaster and Morecambe; The large sites would have a shopping collection point at which goods bought within the City Centre may be collected from a distributor at a pre-arranged time. This should remove the need for the public to drive into Lancaster to shop for large items and could potentially be funded by the larger retailers: As well as a Park & Ride facility, sites may also be used to Park & Cycle. This proposal would see cycle hire facilities (either staffed or otherwise) at each site where users can continue their journey – be it for business or leisure – on bicycle, and shower facilities would be provided at the larger sites to further the appeal of this mode; and Unlike the standard Park & Ride concept, large Park & Ride sites may be used for those without cars to hire them for the purposes of getting out of the area. In particular, University students otherwise prohibited from bringing their vehicles to University may use the car hire facilities to explore the wider area or for day trips further afield. This practice may be better deemed as ‘Ride & Drive’.

In this way, each Park & Ride facility is expected to offer a wide range of benefits to the local community and act as a powerful tool to combat congestion in Lancaster City Centre.

4.3.2

New Park & Ride Locations Figure 4.6 highlights potential locations of major road-based Park & Ride schemes.

Note: The sites identified as potential Park & Ride hubs are aspirational and located as a result of their convenience for major transport links only. No demand modelling has been undertaken at this stage to test the feasibility of each site for Park & Ride use.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

73

The proposed M6 to Heysham Link Road provides two opportunities for Lancaster City Centre focused Park & Ride. Firstly, a site that is being developed in tandem with the Link Road, adjacent to Junction 34 of the M6, which is designed to intercept southbound M6 traffic heading towards Lancaster City Centre. This site provides a convenient location for interchange with public transport services destined for the City Centre for people residing in the rural areas in the north of the district, particularly those to the east of the M6. Secondly, at the intersection between the new Link Road and the A6 north of Lancaster. This location at Beaumont will also intercept southbound traffic but from more local areas such as Bolton-le-Sands and Hest Bank and provide a convenient northern Park & Ride facility.

In addition to the strategic Park & Ride site proposed at Junction 34, a site in the vicinity of Junction 33 is endorsed for Lancaster-bound traffic. Theoretically, the ideal site would be located in close vicinity to Junction 33, south of Galgate. However, this location offers limited advantages and is constrained by traffic congestion at Galgate, limiting the effectiveness of a frequent public transport vehicle.

Preferably, a further site located nearer to Lancaster University and essentially north of Galgate is proposed, and this is linked to the options to extend or relocate Junction 33 presented later in this document. These proposals would see the junction either relocated completely to a point closer to the University, effectively bypassing Galgate, or could potentially be facilitated by the provision of on-off egress arrangements to the M6, perhaps linking into the existing A6 Hazelrigg Lane junction. The Park & Ride site is proposed for a location immediately to the south of the University, and the basic idea is that northbound traffic would egress the motorway and use frequent dedicated services, routed through Lancaster University and potentially the Lancaster Science Park to improve the viability of the scheme, for onward travel to the City Centre.

Current policy guidance limits the proliferation of additional junctions on the Motorway network, and therefore new slips directly serving a Park & Ride site is not an option. Should the climate change, a scheme to charge drivers to pay to exit the motorway at this location regardless of whether they use the Park & Ride site, could be investigated. This could potentially function as a rudimentary congestion charge providing vehicles with the option of avoiding the congestion further south around Galgate. Such a scheme would require incentives in terms of cost and a disbenefit attached to use of the car i.e. demonstrably longer journey times.

Figure 4.6 also highlights two potential sites directly adjacent to the Lancaster-Morecambe Greenway, one at White Lund Industrial Park serving the site and Morecambe, and the other at Salt Ayre, potentially linking to a new bridge serving the Luneside area (see Chapter 4.2.3).

Both of these locations are situated adjacent to the proposed routeing for a new rapid transit link between Lancaster and Morecambe and hence may serve as Park & Ride sites for either location, intercepting traffic on the A683, which is predicted to increase as a result of the new M6 to Heysham Link Road. Salt Ayre in particular has potential to become a large multipurpose site due to the abundance of undeveloped land adjacent to the A683, and its potential convenience for communities in the Heysham area.

Potential Park & Ride Sites at White Lund and Salt Ayre

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

74

Owing to the seasonal nature of tourism to the District, particularly to Morecambe, a Morecambe focused Park & Ride may not be financially viable for year round operation and therefore may be limited to Summer and perhaps late Spring, early Autumn operation.

The advantages and disadvantages of the various locations discussed in this chapter are shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Proposed Park & Ride Locations Site: M6 Junction 33 Advantages Captures northbound A6 and M6 traffic heading for Lancaster and potentially Morecambe and Heysham.

Potential for combination with University and potential Science Park services.

Could be used as a hub to serve southern and outlying rural fringe areas University campus creates strong all day demand.

Existing high-frequency bus route.

Potential solution to Galgate crossroads issue.

Site: A6 Beaumont

Advantages

Serves coastal areas of Bolton-Le-Sands and Hest Bank.

Linked to new Heysham to M6 Link Road potential overspill for proposed M6 Junction 34 site.

Reduces car-based penetration in City Centre.

Disadvantages

Constraints posed by Galgate crossroads.

Limited opportunities for implementation of associated Bus Priority Measures on A6 into Lancaster.

Disadvantages

Limited opportunities for implementation of associated Bus Priority Measures on A6 into Lancaster.

Limited distance to Lancaster presents difficulties in achieving real journey time savings.

Current limited frequency bus route.

Potential difficulties in generating all-day demand to provide frequent service.

Potential that location will reduce attractiveness of existing public transport services.

Site: Salt Ayre Advantages

Potential location for Western interceptor (linked to new River Lune bridge).

Potential (linked to River Lune bridge) to increase feasibility of development in the Luneside area of the city â&#x20AC;&#x201C; dual use shopping/business.

Reduces car-based penetration in City Centre.

Parallel to high frequency bus route with Bus Priority Measures into Lancaster.

Potential location at reclaimed Landfill site.

Disadvantages

Limited distance to Lancaster presents difficulties in achieving real journey time savings.

Location unlikely to offer significant reductions in car mileage.

Potential that location will reduce attractiveness of existing public transport services.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

75

Site: White Lund Advantages

4.3.3

Captures Morecambe and potentially Heysham bound traffic on A683 and proposed M6 to Heysham Link Road.

Reduces car-based penetration in Morecambe Town Centre.

Potential use as football based Park & Ride (Christie Field/Westgate).

Parallel to high frequency bus route.

Disadvantages

Limited distance to Morecambe presents difficulties in achieving real journey time savings.

Seasonal nature of tourism may limit year round operation.

Potential that location will reduce attractiveness of existing public transport services.

Rail Based Park & Ride For obvious reasons, proposed rail based Park & Ride locations all correspond to existing rail stations. With regard to the smaller rail stations of Morecambe, Heysham and Bare Lane, the strategy includes expansion of car parking facilities insofar as land constraints will allow.

The major rail based Park & Ride site is, however, envisaged as being located at Carnforth rail station. Current parking charges and limited space are acting as a barrier to the use of the station as a Park & Ride site at present, but the frequency of services and the relative speed of travel between Carnforth and Lancaster make rail an attractive mode for accessing the City Centre. Consequently, it is proposed to create a new sensitively designed Park & Ride site on rail land currently used for storing derelict vehicles adjacent to the station. This would facilitate the expansion of parking provision at the station, whilst improving Carnforthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s image by removing a current eyesore on the rail network.

4.3.4

Interceptor Car Parking In addition to the proposed Park & Ride schemes noted above, a further component of this strategy is in the creation of major interceptor car parking sites on the major routes into the City Centre from the north and south. This will complement a number of other strategies, including for example, maximum levels of parking provision in new developments and sensible pricing structures across the entirety of the parking provision, designed to reduce the volume of trips entering the city centre by means of the private car.

Lancaster has 2,663 publicly available parking spaces within the city centre, 50% of which are controlled by Lancaster City Council in 16 separate sites, ranging from 15 spaces to 130 spaces. The current system requires drivers to circulate the one-way system hunting for a space, generating unnecessary mileage, impacting on congestion and adding to the air quality problems. The proposals in the transport strategy promote the use of Park & Ride for longer distance trips supported by two interceptor car parks, one at the northern end of the central one-way system, loosely the proposed Centros facility or equivalent, and one at the southern end, currently envisaged as the Auction mart site, currently in City Council ownership.

The interceptor car parks would replace the 16 sites, providing broadly an equivalent number of spaces, to cater for shorter distance traffic or those choosing not to use the Park & Ride. A pricing policy for parking would need to be developed, however, it is envisaged that parking would be more expensive the closer you get to the city core. The purpose of this is to encourage the use of the Park & Ride, and alleviating the congestion into the city, or to encourage use of alternative modes for shorter trips.

It is assumed that all the remaining council-operated car park sites would be available for redevelopment with limited parking provision. A further option might be to reserve a couple of the smaller sites for Blue Badge holders, encouraging such parking off street, rather than onstreet. Whilst the exact number of parking spaces in each interceptor car park would need to be agreed, replacing like for like parking provision would require around 750-800 spaces at the southern end of the city. However, with certain other elements of the strategy in place, it could be argued that fewer spaces should be provided to encourage use of alternative modes. This would still be more than the 200-250 envisaged under current proposals for the Auction Mart site.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

76

Figure 4.7 highlights the interceptor car parking strategy showing facility locations and inward routeing of vehicles.

Figure 4.7: Interceptor Car Parking Strategy

The proposal for providing comprehensive interceptor car parking in Lancaster City Centre involves two component stages: the extension of the existing long-stay car park on Thurnham Street and the construction of a new large long-stay car park, located off St. Leonardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gate, potentially as proposed in the Centros development and accessed via a new link from Caton Road/Bulk Street. The development of the Southern Interceptor should be a priority, particularly in view of the potential loss of parking spaces during the redevelopment of the Canal Corridor North site.

Both of these parking facilities are intended to be situated at key entry locations for vehicles entering Lancaster from either direction on the strategic network and will incorporate decked or multi-levelled parking. They will be easily accessible for vehicles as an alternative to entering the main City Centre one-way system and, subject to securing the necessary funding, could potentially be served by new city centre shuttle services.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

77

Examples of high quality Interceptor Parking Facilities

Northern Interceptor In terms of the northern interceptor car park, this is envisaged at the junction of St. Leonard’s Gate and Alfred Street and subject to planning permission, integrated into the wider retail development forwarded by Centros. The car park could be a multi-storey facility serving both the City Centre and the new development, helping to connect the shopping centre with the city’s eastside and the River Lune. It would be signed from the A6 and could include a new cutthrough access from Bulk Road providing a line of sight to the car park from the bridges, A6 and A683, serving traffic from the Morecambe/Heysham peninsula and the north.

The construction of a northern Interceptor car park at St. Leonardsgate would provide an opportunity to free up existing car parks at Cable Street (95 spaces), Wood Street (15 spaces) and potentially St. Nicholas Arcades (261 spaces) for development or public realm enhancements. It is understood that Centros is looking to provide in the region of 800 spaces, which compares to 316 at the existing surface car parks to be demolished (Upper St. Leonardsgate, Lower St. Leonardsgate, Edward Street and Lodge Street). Should it be approved and the case for removing parking opportunities at Cable Street, Wood Street and St. Nicholas Arcades be acceptable, the interceptor car park would provide a net increase of approximately 113 spaces on the additional publicly available offer.

Southern Interceptor The strategy for the southern interceptor car park would be to provide an enhanced multi-storey facility at the Auction Mart facility (currently being advertised by Lancaster City Council), complementing the provision at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary. In order to facilitate the success of the strategy it would be necessary to review access and routeing of vehicles to make it more easily accessible from the South Road and Aldcliffe Road junction. This review could be conducted and implemented as part of any amendments to the one-way system afforded by the implementation of the wider Vision and Strategy for the Lancaster District.

The construction of a modern ‘built for purpose’ Interceptor car park at the Auction Mart site would provide an opportunity to free up existing car parks at Moor Mills (147 spaces), Nelson Street (120 spaces), Charterhouse (50 spaces), Spring Garden Street (28 spaces) and potentially Marketgate (115 spaces) for development or public realm enhancements. Taking into account the current capacity of the site, which is 120, a car park catering for 580 cars would maintain parking at existing levels and free up valuable space on the City Centre gyratory and former car parking sites.

The current routeing strategy and access is indicated in Figure 4.8 overleaf.

Access to the Auction Mart site would need to be improved to cater for additional movements generated by a larger multi-storey car park. Located to the east of the gyratory and accessed from Thurnham Street, access from the south is gained via King Street, Common Garden Street/Brock Street. Potentially a less convoluted route to that of Common Garden Street/Brock Street, exists via Spring Garden Street/George Street, however this would require the reverse of the existing traffic flow and a junction modification at King Street/Spring Garden Street. This route is less dominated by retailers and therefore could be a deemed a more viable alternative.

Alternatively, the routeing option via Penny Street/Morton Street, a route known to locals and regular commuters could be prioritised. However, Penny Street forms part of the spine of the

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

78

retail core and is subject to a heavy footfall and could also be deemed not appropriate for attracting additional flows.

A further option, and to a large extent dependent on the success of a wider strategy, would be to undertake a significant alteration to the Penny Street/Thurnham Street/Aldcliffe Road junction to facilitate direct access from the south. Such an option would be favourable as it would reduce unnecessary penetration into the gyratory system and retail core of the City Centre, serving as a true interceptor. All these would require detailed analysis and design work to identify a solution that would be acceptable to Lancashire County Council as the Highway Authority.

Figure 4.8: Auction Mart Existing Access

The potential routeing options are shown in Figure 4.9.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

79

Figure 4.9: Auction Mart Potential Routeing and Access Options

Western Interceptor In addition, the potential exists to combine the Park & Ride site at Salt Ayre, noted earlier, with a western interceptor facility, being closer to the city core than the other Park & Ride proposals, giving the users of the site the choice of walking to the City Centre via a new Lune Bridge.

As a further development it could be that the new interceptor car parks offer advantageously located spaces for sustainable models, perhaps in the future incorporating electric charging facilities for electric powered cars and motorcycles, or car club members. This should not be to the detriment of disabled persons and parent with child spaces. Lancaster could follow the lead of Bristol City Council that has implemented policies in a Sustainable Planning Document, to secure contributions to car clubs from developers. Car clubs offer the obvious benefit of enabling members to rent vehicles for short periods of time instead of running their own cars.

In developing an appropriate strategy for city centre car parking, Faber Maunsell recommends that the following steps are taken to inform the decision.

4.3.5

Extensive City Centre on-street and off-street car parking survey (assessing turnover, occupancy levels and length of stay).

Analysis of private non-residential (PNR) parking space.

Evaluation of existing Residential Parking Zones (RPZs) and potential for further expansions (owing to likely impact on future demand for car parking).

Phasing The creation of a Park & Ride and Interceptor Car Parking strategy for Lancaster and Morecambe must be phased correctly in order to maximise the benefit to local people and to integrate with the other aspects of the wider transport strategy. It is essential that new Park & Ride options come on-stream in conjunction with new transport corridors which they serve, so that traffic levels around Lancaster City Centre and between Lancaster and Morecambe are not driven to unacceptably high levels.

The following ordering for the major Park & Ride/interceptor car park strategy is proposed: 1. Creation of large interceptor car parking in Lancaster City Centre. This is to include a new large northern facility linked to new development by Centros, and an extended southern car park adjacent to Thurnham Street on the site of the current ‘Auction Mart’ facility; 2. Creation of a ‘New Generation’ Park & Ride facility adjacent to Junction 34 of the M6 to integrate with the newly constructed M6 to Heysham Link Road;

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

80

3. Creation of a ‘New Generation’ Park & Ride facility at Beaumont to intercept southbound A6 traffic; 4. Creation of an extended Park & Ride facility at Carnforth Rail Station; 5. Creation of a Park & Ride facility at White Lund Industrial Estate adjacent to the A683 Morecambe Road; 6. Creation of a ‘New Generation’ Park & Ride facility adjacent to Salt Ayre to integrate with new rapid transit along the Lancaster-Morecambe Greenway; and 7. Creation of a ‘New Generation’ Park & Ride facility, south of Lancaster University integrated with the new slip road from the M6 Motorway (see footnote).

The timescales for each of these are heavily dependent on the other transport schemes, which they complement, however it may be assumed that both the Centros development, and the M6 to Heysham Link could be completed within the next 5 years. In terms of the three phase system discussed earlier, it is envisaged that facilities 1 and 2 above could be implemented within phase one with the Park & Ride at Junction 34 coming on-stream to complement the opening of the new M6 to Heysham link road at the end of the phase. Stages 3 to 6 would then be implemented within phase two and the final Park & Ride in the south would, depending on the solution to the Galgate issue, come on-stream within phase three2.

4.3.6

Costing As an approximate attempt to cost the strategy, the following costs have been assumed based upon previous examples provided by Merseytravel, GMPTE and other relevant organisations:

Multi-Storey Parking Facility at £8,000 per space; Single Level Standard Parking Facility at £4,000 per space; and New Park & Ride Bus at £200,000 per vehicle.

Given these costs, and assuming that each standard Park & Ride facility comprises 250 spaces, each ‘New Generation’ facility and Interceptor car park comprises 500 spaces, and that 10 new standard buses will be required to initially operate the Park & Ride service at a cost of £200,000 per vehicle, the total cost for the scheme is estimated to be £18 million.

4.3.7

Conclusion To conclude the Park & Ride/Interceptor Car Parking strategy for the Lancaster District, it is proposed to create a number of high quality facilities located outside of the main congestion zones of the City Centre. These facilities would be situated on primary routes into the centre and would integrate well with all modes. In addition, each site would serve a variety of purposes, combining high quality Park & Ride with car and bike hire, shopping collection, waste collection, and associated facilities.

In addition to these, northern and southern interceptor car parks are proposed at convenient points upon entry to the City Centre. These facilities will comprise large scale, multi-storey car parking and will act to remove City Centre traffic from the main congested gyratory system, being at walking distance from most land-uses within the central core.

It is also important to emphasise that Park & Ride must be viewed in the context of a package of measures and it alone will not be able to promote the sustainable travel patterns required to beat congestion.

2

However, if development in the area such as at the University, the Bailrigg Science Park etc. was advanced with its associated mitigating measures then a park and ride facility close to Junction 33 may be introduced at an earlier phase.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

81

Park & Ride and Interceptor Car Parking Strategy - Implications on the Transport Vision and Strategy Economy – The objectives of the proposals are to reduce the congestion on the key road arteries in the District.

Air Quality and the Environment – The proposals are designed to intercept vehicles en route to the key centres, thereby reducing traffic emissions, particularly associated with queuing traffic in Lancaster City Centre. The delivery of an effective Park & Ride scheme will also significantly enhance Air Quality in Lancaster City Centre and provide opportunities for significant public realm and landscape improvements.

Accessibility – Central to the success of the scheme is the provision of regular, reliable and fast alternatives. This is likely to involve Public Transport or a new Rapid Transit system.

Quality of Life – Subject to introducing a seamless and viable alternative to the private car, the scheme will reduce frustrations associated with journey time unreliability.

Congestion – Both schemes are designed to reduce the distance travelled and volume of traffic on the District’s roads.

4.4

Accessibility to the South (Galgate Issue) One of the most challenging constraints to further development in the south of the Lancaster District is the problem associated with the signalised junction at Galgate crossroads, which is located in the south of the district, north of junction 33 of the M6 (see Figure 4.10).

Traffic Congestion in Galgate near Junction 33 of M6

This problem stems from a bottleneck on the A6 primary route owing to site constraints at the junction and its proximity to the M6. At present, AM peak hour queuing in the northbound direction is so severe that traffic tails back as far as the motorway junction slip road and will soon queue onto the motorway itself if growth is left unchecked. As a consequence, further trip generating development is effectively prohibited south of Lancaster City Centre, which has derailed the proposals for the Lancaster Science Park at Bailrigg and could potentially curtail further development at Lancaster University.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

82

Figure 4.10: Existing Access to Lancaster

Tackling the Galgate issue is a primary concern for this Transport Vision and Strategy and hence, a major scheme to be developed here is to improve, by extension or relocation, Junction 33 of the M6 in order to address this. The following sections outline the scheme purpose and present a set of three potential improvements to the junction arrangement, each requiring a different level of intervention, and for which potential benefits and disbenefits will be discussed.

4.4.1

Proposal to alleviate the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Galgate Issueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; In order to facilitate development in the District and reduce the volume of traffic passing through Galgate, it is felt that an adapted arrangement or new junction on the M6 is required at a location north of Galgate. This would allow traffic to exit the motorway and access the A6 towards either Lancaster University or Lancaster City Centre itself, without travelling through Galgate and experiencing congestion and delay. Such a scheme would have obvious benefits for Galgate and could potentially facilitate improved access to the proposed Community Hall.

It is proposed that this new M6 egress would be linked with a Park & Ride scheme, as noted in the preceding section, and it would be most feasible if connected to the University and/or Bailrigg Science Park. As a result, it is thought that the most ideal location for the new motorway access to the A6 would link into Hazelrigg Lane, which although it would require upgrading, currently passes underneath the M6 at a location 2km north of the existing junction.

A further advantage of this route is that a high quality signalised junction has recently been installed at the intersection with the A6 as part of the construction of new student accommodation blocks at Alexandra Park, at the south side of the University, and is adjacent to the site earmarked for the new University Science Park.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

83

Location of current M6 underbridge and views of surrounding land

4.4.2

Low Intervention The lowest intervention proposal to resolve the Galgate issue is to create a new northbound offslip from the M6 linking to Hazelrigg Lane. This measure would effectively create Junction 33a and would involve the closure of the existing northbound off-slip, as shown in Figure 4.11. An advantage of this low intervention solution is that, due to the retention of the majority of Junction 33 as is, it allows for the regulation of traffic using the link.

Figure 4.11: Galgate Solution - Low Intervention

This link would pass adjacent to the new Park & Ride facility, which could be situated on any of the surrounding land as space constraints dictate and subject to a detailed site investigation and land purchase negotiation. It is envisaged that this Park & Ride will be designated as being one of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;new generationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; facilities including shopping collection, Park & Cycle facilities, and car and cycle hire. It is intended that this would encourage vehicles to make use of the Park & Ride to avoid congestion and parking issues in Lancaster City Centre, but it also provides a scheme in which motorists may avoid the aforementioned Galgate Issue.

In this scheme only an off-slip is provided, since observationally and linked to land use, the traffic conditions in the southbound direction on the A6, though often severe, are not considered as problematic as those in the northbound. Consequently, with this level of intervention, vehicles are expected to access the M6 southbound at the existing Junction 33. In the opposite direction on the motorway, it is not expected that there will be a large demand for southbound traffic to use the Park & Ride since there will be a further facility located at Junction 34 upstream, and consequently no provision is proposed for this direction.

Faber Maunsell

4.4.3

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

84

Medium Intervention Figure 4.12 shows a refinement of the low intervention option. As the name suggests, the medium level of intervention adds a further link from Hazelrigg Lane to provide a direct access to the motorway for southbound traffic. This will negate the need for returning traffic to travel back southwards via Galgate providing significant relief to the village, and adds to the attractiveness and feasibility of any southern Park & Ride scheme.

In line with advice from the Highways Agency to reduce the proliferation of new junctions, as with any new northbound off-slip, the creation of a new southbound on-slip, will require the closure of the existing arrangement at Junction 33. The northbound on-slip and southbound off-slip at Junction 33 would remain unaffected.

Figure 4.12: Galgate Solution - Medium Intervention

4.4.4

High Intervention â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Junction 33 Full Relocation The third option and the scheme with the highest level of intervention, involves relocating Junction 33 of the M6 in its entirety, around 2km north of its current position. Again this option would link into Hazelrigg Lane. Whilst this option is undoubtedly a high cost alternative, it offers advantages over the current situation and the previous two proposals, in that it completely removes University/Science Park-based motorway traffic from the village of Galgate and effectively bypasses the bottleneck that is causing the current development constraint. Other benefits of this option include its potential to increase the feasibility of the proposed Park & Ride and Rapid Transit systems, and addressing the safety problems associated with traffic backing up to the M6 mainline. Such a scheme could considerably enhance the amenity value of the village.

Figure 4.13 shows this potential option, using an indicative standard junction layout. In order to increase the feasibility it is recommended that the Park & Ride services be linked directly through the University and potentially the Lancaster Science Park and onwards. This will assist in generating a demand for services throughout the day.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

85

Figure 4.13: Galgate Solution - High Intervention

4.4.5

Charging Alternative An alternative approach to delivering a new Junction 33 was considered to support the ‘Low’ and ‘Medium’ intervention options. This incorporated a charge to use these options as an alternative to using the existing Junction 33. Effectively, this scheme would serve as a form of congestion charge for avoiding Galgate. In return, vehicles would have free access to and use of a complementary Park & Ride site. Under this option, a system for limiting the slip roads to Park & Ride users only could be developed to restrict inappropriate use. Alternatively a higher cost could be applied to users who choose not to use Park & Ride facilities.

It would be less practical and acceptable for the ‘high’ intervention option to be tolled for use since it would represent the only option for accessing the south of Lancaster from the motorway.

As stated, current Highways Agency guidance seeks to reduce the proliferation of junctions on motorways. Therefore, this means that where new accesses/egresses are required, feasible and funded, the Highways Agency will seek, in the first instance, to restrict new construction to like-for-like arrangements. This directive effectively scuppers the potential for an innovative scheme of charging vehicles for using the ‘low’ and ‘medium’ intervention slip road options, wherein the existing junction was to be retained as is.

4.4.6

Phasing The number of phases required to complete the options presented above depend on the level of intervention chosen. It is clear that the addition of a single slip road consists of one phase only and is thus a single stage project, which, subject to obtaining the consent of the Highways Agency, could potentially be completed within a 5 to 15 year timeframe. Adding a further southbound slip road at a later stage would then probably require a similar timescale and could possibly be completed within phase three of the strategy.

The ‘high’ intervention option may be split into three distinct phases, however, including the separate opening of each of the northbound and southbound sets of slip roads, and the final closing of the current Junction 33. Assuming that there is a minimum requirement for a single off-slip to be in place by the time of opening of the Lancaster University Park & Ride facility, then it will be necessary to have this measure in place within fifteen years, however it is

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

86

probably reasonable to expect that a full new junction adjacent to the University and closure of the existing Junction 33 could take up to 20 years to realise.

4.4.7

Costing Recent examples of new Motorway junctions in the North West have been costed at around £40million for new slip roads and junction infrastructure as was the case for the upgraded Junction 6 of the M62 in Merseyside (confirmed in the Inspectors Report for this scheme). In the case of Galgate, accounting for the closure of the existing Junction 33, it is estimated that a reasonable estimate for this cost may be nearer £50million even taking recouped land revenue into account. The cost of the project will be heavily dependent on the level of intervention required, however as an order of magnitude estimate, a cost of £10million per slip road with £50million for full junction relocation seems reasonable.

4.4.8

Conclusion A potential resolution measure to the ‘Galgate Issue’ of congestion is outlined above with three distinct levels of intervention. Regarding these, it is considered imperative to the future growth of development in the south of the district to implement, as a minimum, the single northbound slip road linked to a Park & Ride facility. This is envisaged to relieve northbound congestion within the village of Galgate by providing an alternative route to south Lancaster from the M6, whilst the Park & Ride will ensure that traffic assigns itself to the network in such a way so that Galgate will not lose out significantly as a result of the new route. It is important to underline that this option is heavily linked to Park & Ride and that as such, much of the traffic will be expected to interchange at the site to avoid further congestion using the A6 north into Lancaster and the City Centre itself.

Further to this, however, it is recommended that southbound on-slip be relocated as part of a new Junction 33a to increase the feasibility of the Park & Ride and provide greater relief to Galgate.

Although desirable and subject to further study, it is considered unlikely to be necessary to completely relocate Junction 33, even if the expense of such an endeavour could be justified.

This is especially true as the key demands at the junction are satisfied by the Medium level intervention. As a result of this, it is difficult to recommend the high level of intervention within the scope of this study.

M6 Junction 33 Modifications - Implications on the Transport Vision and Strategy Economy – Resolving the Galgate issue is essential to fulfilling the development aspirations in Lancaster South, providing additional employment opportunities.

Air Quality and the Environment – The proposals are designed to effectively ‘bypass’ Galgate, which would significantly enhance the Air Quality in Galgate. If linked to an effective Park & Ride scheme, the scheme could also significantly reduce the problems of Air Quality in Lancaster City Centre.

Accessibility – A new/revised motorway junction will significantly enhance access to south Lancaster and Lancaster City Centre from the south.

Quality of Life – The major impacts of the scheme will, depending on the level of intervention, include an enhanced quality of life for residents in Galgate and open up development opportunities.

Congestion – The raison d’etre for the scheme is the alleviation of the problems and in particular, northbound traffic backing up to the mainline of the M6, associated with the constraints of the Galgate Crossroads. The options discussed above seek to resolve this bottleneck.

4.5

Lancaster City Centre One-Way System Review Significant traffic growth over the last few decades, combined with an inadequate public transport system or incentive to use public transport, has meant that many of the City Centre radial routes and the gyratory system are operating at or close to capacity, predominantly in the peak periods.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

87

The gyratory system in Lancaster consists of three main one-way systems, each with traffic circulating in a clockwise direction. The main and largest gyratory is the southernmost system and consists of King Street, China Street, Bridge Lane, Cable Street, North Road, and Thurnham Street running between Lancaster Royal Infirmary in the south and Greyhound Bridge in the north. The Lune Bridges one-way system allows Morecambe/Heysham/Carnforth bound traffic on Greyhound Bridge, and Lancaster City Centre/M6 bound traffic on Skerton Bridge. Finally, the north-eastern system consists of Kingsway, Caton Road and Bulk Road.

Parliament Street is also one-way in the northern direction for general traffic, but a contra-flow bus lane provides priority for public transport from the Morecambe/Heysham peninsula, offering a short-cut between Skerton Bridge and the bus station on Cable Street. The psychological impact of the one-way traffic is at certain points intimidating due to the perceived speed of traffic and narrow nature of the footways.

Owing to a number of existing and proposed developments, including Lawson’s Quay, Canal Corridor North and Luneside, it is felt that Lancaster’s gyratory system no longer represents the best use of traffic management and is actively contributing to congestion and delay. With this in mind, a series of potential options have been drawn up to reallocate roadspace in the City Centre. The philosophy behind this is to reduce delay, however it must be noted that it does not necessarily follow that the options should reduce delay to the private car. Instead, a full range of options will be reviewed, some of which prioritise travel by sustainable modes, thereby reducing delay for those that choose to travel to Lancaster by means that will not lead to traffic congestion.

In this section, each of the potential gyratory modification options will be discussed and the benefits and respective disbenefits of each scheme reviewed leading to the identification of a preferred scheme.

4.5.1

Modification Options - Gyratory Review As stated above, in order to combat the issue of traffic congestion and poor journey times across Lancaster City Centre due to the current gyratory system, a number of options have been proposed to improve and re-route flows. It is envisaged that a preferred gyratory routeing strategy may be derived which incorporates some or all of the ideas presented within these.

The options are presented in the attached set of diagrams Figures 4.14 to 4.17 and each is summarised below. It must be noted that each scheme is proposed in the context of completion of the M6 to Heysham Link Road and the predicted improvements to traffic levels on the Lancaster gyratories and rely on the development of a wider package of measures to promote sustainable travel patterns.

Option A: The main gyratory is retained and the Lune and Kingsway gyratories are reverted to two-way flows.

Option B: The main gyratory is reverted to two-way flows. Bus Priority to/from Morecambe is now provided on Greyhound Bridge with a lane of ‘all traffic’ in the westbound direction.

Flows on Skerton Bridge are reverted to two-way. The Kingsway gyratory is retained as is, with the exception of a bus contra flow on Kingsway, providing priority for M6 Junction 34 Park & Ride services.

Option C: The main gyratory is retained as is. Greater Bus Priority into Lancaster from Morecambe/Heysham and Halton, is provided via bus contra flow lanes on Greyhound Bridge and Kingsway.

Option D: The main gyratory is reverted to two-way flows, with exception of a bus contra flow on the western side, operating in a southbound direction between Bulk Road and Meeting House Lane. This will decrease the roadspace given over to northbound traffic lanes.

Greater Bus Priority into Lancaster from Morecambe/Heysham and Halton is provided via bus contra flow lanes on Greyhound Bridge and Kingsway. Flows on Skerton Bridge and Morecambe Road are reverted to two-way.

Option E: The main gyratory is restricted to one lane for all traffic with a public transport contra flow. Bus Priority to/from Morecambe is now provided on Greyhound Bridge with a lane of ‘all traffic’ in the westbound direction. Flows on Skerton Bridge and Morecambe Road are reverted to two-way.

Option F: All sections of the interlinked gyratories are reverted to two-way flows.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

4.5.2

88

Option G: The main gyratory is reverted to two-way flows. Bus Priority from Morecambe is now provided via a contra flow bus lane on Greyhound Bridge. Flows on Skerton Bridge and Kingsway are reverted to two-way.

Option H: The main gyratory is reverted to two-way flows and the Lune and Kingsway gyratories are maintained as is. Current bus lanes on the A683 Morecambe Road and on Parliament Street are also retained; Option I: Retain main gyratory as one-way flow with exception of a two-way flow on western side, between Bulk Road and Meeting House Lane. Maintain Lune and Kingsway gyratories as is, with the exception of a bus contra flow on Kingsway, providing priority for M6 Junction 34 Park & Ride services. Current bus lanes on the A683 Morecambe Road and on Parliament Street are also retained; Option J: The main gyratory is restricted to one lane for all traffic with a with-flow public transport only lane. Bus Priority to/from Morecambe is now provided on Greyhound Bridge with a lane of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;all trafficâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the westbound direction. Flows on Skerton Bridge and Morecambe Road are reverted to two-way. In addition a bus contra flow is provided on Kingsway, providing priority for M6 Junction 34 Park & Ride services.

Option K: The main gyratory is restricted to one lane for all traffic with a public transport contra flow. Bus Priority from Morecambe is now provided on Greyhound Bridge with a contra flow bus lane. Flows on Bulk Road, Caton Road, Skerton Bridge and Morecambe Road are reverted to two-way. In addition a bus contra flow is provided on Kingsway, providing priority for M6 Junction 34 Park & Ride services.

Benefit and Disbenefit Analysis The evident benefits and disbenefits of these schemes are presented in the following table: Table 4.5: Lancaster City Centre Gyratory Optioneering Option Benefits Disbenefits A Better access between Lancaster Loss of bus priority from north between Morecambe Road and bus station.

City Centre and Morecambe/Heysham peninsula Congestion at bridge pinch-points due to using either bridge. heavy mixed bi-directional traffic.

Improved access to Kingsway Loss of capacity on routes to north of the area. city especially to A683 Morecambe Road.

Provides general traffic route Increases attractiveness of cross-city A6 between M6 and A6/A683 avoiding route from south to north. main gyratory system.

No significant improvement for access to Improved access to Centros area Luneside area/Lancaster station.

No additional provision for sustainable and potential northern interceptor transport modes from the south. car park.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option B

C

D

Benefits Provides high profile sustainable transport priority scheme between Lancaster and Morecambe via Greyhound Bridge.

Reduced Public Transport journey times between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Greater ease of movement around City Centre and accessibility to all areas (including Luneside area/Lancaster station).

Removes buses from pinch point junction at Skerton Bridge.

Increases access to southern car parks.

Greater access from City Centre to Carnforth.

Loss of ‘platooning’ effect associated with gyratories.

Provides bus priority for M6 J34 Park & Ride.

Allows greater levels of bus priority from Morecambe to be implemented.

Provides bus priority for M6 J34 Park & Ride.

Could work in long-term as part of M6 to Heysham Link Road scheme to encourage northbound throughtraffic to bypass Lancaster via M6 and new link.

Provides excellent bus priority from Morecambe and for M6 J34 Park & Ride.

Strong sustainable transport corridor serving bus station and access into Luneside area.

A6 made largely two-way improving ease of movement and access to eastern car parks.

Removes buses from pinch point junction at Skerton Bridge relieving congestion at A6/A683 junction.

Loss of ‘platooning’ effect associated with gyratories.

89

Disbenefits Loss of capacity for car modes between Morecambe and the City Centre (could be advantage if used in conjunction with link road scheme).

Conflict between different vehicle types around main gyratory.

Increases attractiveness of cross-city A6 route from south to north.

No additional provision for sustainable transport modes from the south.

In the short-term, traffic congestion will increase on northbound routes due to loss of capacity.

No significant improvement for access to Luneside area/Lancaster station.

No additional provision for sustainable transport modes from the south.

Loss of capacity for general southbound traffic leading to increased congestion in the short-term.

Congestion at bridge pinch-points due to heavy mixed bi-directional traffic.

Reduced access for car-borne traffic to Luneside area/Lancaster station.

No additional provision for sustainable transport modes from the south.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option E

F

Benefits Provides high profile sustainable transport priority scheme in Lancaster City Centre.

Contra flow bus lane would facilitate pedestrian access into the city core without need to cross A6.

Provides excellent bus priority to/from Morecambe and for M6 J34 Park & Ride.

Consistent with M6 to Heysham Link Road scheme to encourage northbound through-traffic to bypass Lancaster via M6 and new link.

Greater ease of movement around centre for all motorised modes.

Better access to car parks, Luneside area/Lancaster station) and Kingsway area.

Loss of ‘platooning’ effect associated with gyratories.

Increases access to southern car parks.

90

Disbenefits Significant reduction in City Centre capacity.

Reduction in accessibility to all City Centre destinations and shorter distance cross-city trips, via means of the private car.

G

H

Greater ease of movement around main gyratory for all motorised modes.

Better access to car parks, Luneside area/Lancaster station) and Kingsway area.

Loss of ‘platooning’ effect associated with gyratories.

Increases access to southern car parks.

Allows greater levels of bus priority from Morecambe to be implemented.

Greater ease of movement around main City Centre core.

Better access to south eastern car parks.

Retains regulation of traffic in congested pinch-point section around bridges and allows prioritisation of public transport from north.

Lack of management leads to conflict for road space between users.

Congestion at bridge pinch-points due to heavy mixed bi-directional traffic.

Heavy and light vehicles impede each other and cause congestion.

Increases attractiveness of cross-city A6 route from south to north could increase flows.

No additional provision for sustainable transport modes from the south.

Congestion at bridge pinch-points due to heavy mixed bi-directional traffic.

Heavy and light vehicles impede each other and cause congestion.

Increases attractiveness of cross-city A6 route from south to north could increase flows.

No additional provision for sustainable transport modes from the south.

Conflict between different vehicle types around main gyratory.

No significant improvement for access to Kingsway area.

No additional provision for sustainable transport modes from the south.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option I

J

K

Benefits Reduces attractiveness of crosscity A6 route from south to north and A683 to Morecambe/Heysham from south.

Retains regulation of traffic in congested pinch-point section around bridges and allows prioritisation of public transport from north.

Loss of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;platooningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; effect associated with gyratories.

Provides bus priority for M6 J34 Park & Ride.

Better access to Luneside area/Lancaster station) from north.

Provides first rate public transport priority system from both north and south on separate lane and serving bus station.

Potential to increase effectiveness of new and existing Park & Ride services by providing unhindered bus lane around City Centre.

Will reduce capacity of city for carrying general traffic complementing M6 Heysham Link Road scheme and encourage through-traffic to bypass Lancaster via M6 and new link.

Reduces confusion over traffic management as gyratory direction is maintained.

Provides first rate public transport priority system from both north and south on separate lane and serving bus station.

Removes buses from pinch-point at Skerton Bridge relieving congestion at A6/A683 junction.

Potential to increase effectiveness of new and existing Park & Ride services by providing unhindered bus lane around City Centre.

Will reduce capacity of city for carrying general traffic complementing M6 Heysham Link Road scheme and encourage through-traffic to bypass Lancaster via M6 and new link.

Allows for bus to board/alight on city core side, reducing the need for circuitous looping.

91

Disbenefits In the short-term, traffic congestion will increase on northbound routes due to loss of capacity.

No additional provision for sustainable transport modes from the south.

Large loss of general traffic capacity around City Centre leading to congestion in short-term.

Relatively empty bus lanes adjacent to congested general lanes may lead to poor levels of conformance with bus lane regulations.

Provides limited bus priority for buses travelling from M6 on A683 including Park & Ride Services.

Maintains inefficient routeing of old gyratory for all modes.

No significant improvement for access to Luneside area/Lancaster station.

Large loss of general traffic capacity around City Centre leading to congestion in short-term.

Will necessitate a separate HGV strategy as these vehicles will be effectively prohibited from gyratory at peak times.

No significant improvement for access to Luneside area/Lancaster station (except by bus).

It should be emphasised that each option requires more detailed analysis and modelling before they could be taken forward. Any gyratory routeing strategy must seek to maintain access for servicing demands and continue to provide/enhance priority to public transport wherever possible. The review of the gyratory also offers an opportunity to better integrate traffic lights and review the position of pedestrian controlled crossing facilities.

Faber Maunsell

4.5.3

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

92

Select Link Analysis The TRIPS model of Lancaster and Morecambe, which includes the Heysham to M6 Link Road, was used to undertake a ‘select link’ analysis to determine the origin and destinations of trips on key sections of highway in Lancaster City Centre. This has been used to inform the City Centre routeing review.

A select link analysis was undertaken at the following locations:

Skerton Bridge, Lancaster - Southbound crossing of the River Lune on the A6.

Greyhound Bridge, Lancaster - Northbound crossing of the River Lune on the A6.

A6 King Street - Northbound section of the City Centre gyratory (between Meeting House Lane and Common Garden Street).

A6 Thurnham Street - Southbound section of the City Centre gyratory (between Nelson Street and South Road).

All model analysis is based on the 2010 AM peak hour period. Appendix C contains Select Link Analysis and Origin & Destination Pairs for Skerton Bridge, Greyhound Bridge, King Street and Thurnham Street.

Skerton Bridge Skerton Bridge is a major southbound crossing over the River Lune, this bridge provides a key connection between Morecambe and Lancaster. The select link analysis has identified these findings with the majority of trips originating in the local Morecambe area. This includes the following key areas:

Morecambe Central & West (Incl. Heysham) – 41% of trips; North of River Lune – 18%; Morecambe East – 17%; and White Lund Industrial Estate - 14%.

Only 8% of trips originate in Morecambe North (Hest Bank, Carnforth) and further north.

The majority of trip destinations are to the Lancaster City Centre area, accounting for in excess of 2/3 of trips using the bridge (69%). One fifth of all trips are headed for Lancaster University.

The analysis shows that very few trips are destined for further south of the district, with Galgate/Garstang representing 4% of the destinations.

The analysis of Origin-Destination pairs with the highest number of trips has shown that trips from White Lund Industrial Estate to Lancaster City Centre form an important movement using Skerton Bridge. The other major movement is to Lancaster University from locations across the Morecambe/Heysham peninsula.

Greyhound Bridge Greyhound Bridge is the solitary northbound crossing over the River Lune west of the M6 and is thus a key connection between Lancaster and Morecambe. As could be expected, the select link analysis on this link has found a near inverse pattern of trip distribution to the southbound Skerton Bridge.

In this case, Lancaster City Centre and the adjacent residential areas, form the key origins of trips using the bridge (87%). There are a number of trips from the south of Lancaster, this includes the Galgate/Garstang area (6%) and the University (3%).

The key destination of all trips over Greyhound Bridge is to Morecambe Central & West (including Heysham) with 297 trips (33%) and White Lund Industrial Estate with 272 trips (31% of trips). Morecambe East is another key destination, with around 15% of trips using the bridge.

7% of trips are destined for Carnforth and further north out of the region.

The Origin-Destination pair analysis found trips between Lancaster and White Lund Industrial Estate is a major movement of trips using Greyhound Bridge.

King Street Within Lancaster City Centre, the A6 forms a gyratory, which largely defines the retail core of the City Centre. King Street forms part of the northbound section of the gyratory (Aldcliffe Road to Meeting House Lane).

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

93

Trips using this section of the A6 originate from a wide area across the District and beyond, however just short of half (46%) of all trips in the AM peak originate from Lancaster City Centre.

The remaining trips from the wider area, originate from:

South of Region (Fylde Coast) – 9% of trips; North of Region (north of Carnforth) – 9%; South of Lancaster (including Galgate/Garstang) – 8%; and Morecambe Central & West (including Heysham) – 7%.

The origins from the south are likely to have used the routeings via Galgate along the A6 to reach the city, trips from south Lancaster and University are likely to be more local based, however a few trips do have destinations to the north of the region. Trips from the north are likely to have used M6 J34 and the gyratory via Thurnham Street to reach the north-west section of the city which is a high destination zone.

For those vehicles using King Street in the AM Peak, Lancaster is the key destination with 847 trips (64%). Other key destinations include the White Lund Industrial Estate (12%) and Morecambe Central & West (including Heysham) area (11%).

The analysis of the key Origin-Destination pairs identified both local movements between Lancaster and White Lund Industrial Estate, White Lund Industrial Estate to the north west of Lancaster City Centre, local Lancaster trips and from the north of the region to the north west of the City Centre (owing to the necessity to circulate the gyratory).

Thurnham Street This section of route forms the southbound section of the City Centre gyratory on the A6.

Origins using this link are primarily from the Morecambe/Heysham Peninsula or north of the region from Kendal and South Lakes. The key areas of origin are as follows: Morecambe Centre & East (including Heysham) - 27% of trips; North of region (north of Carnforth) – 17%; North of River Lune (Skerton, Scale Hall) – 12%; Morecambe East - 11%; and Lancaster City - 10%.

As would be expected, all trip destinations are to the south of the River Lune, and are mainly located in the Lancaster Area, including the Lancaster Royal Infirmary/City Centre (68%) and Lancaster University (22%). Of the remainder, 7% of trips are destined for south Lancaster (Galgate/Garstang) and a further 3% to the Fylde Coast area.

4.5.4

Appraisal of Modification Options Utilising the TRIPS model, the impacts of a number of potential options is shown in Appendix C.

4.5.5

Gyratory Options In order to illustrate the potential impact of modifying the gyratory, a number of cross-sections have been prepared. The image in Figure 4.18 relates to Option J, showing a with flow public transport-only lane, which is high intervention and owing to the significant reduction in capacity, would require significant modal shift in order to be realised.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

94

Figure 4.18: Option J: Cross Sections

The delivery of the Heysham to M6 Link Road and a fully integrated quality public transport offer with appropriate demand management measures would raise the potential of reallocating roadspace as indicated in a number of the options listed in Chapter 4.5.1 and illustrated in the cross-sections above.

The following cross-sections (Figure 4.19 and 4.20), show scheme concepts, which are dependent on achieving significant modal shift and reducing cross-city vehicular trips. The ‘existing’ section shows how the City Centre is very much severed by the A6 and dominated by vehicular traffic. Conversely, the ‘proposed’ section shows how the streetscape can be transformed by prioritising pedestrians at the top of the road user hierarchy. In addition, the section demonstrates how the overall public realm can be significantly improved by addressing the clutter, surfacing and materials.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Figure 4.19: A6 King Street/Market Street Cross-Section (Existing)

95

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

96

Figure 4.20: A6 King Street/Market Street Cross-Section (Proposed)

Opportunities also exist to create key junction points on the gyratory, and providing public realm corridor improvements within the city core. Improved junction points on the gyratory will reduce/mitigate the severance effect of the gyratory upon the city core and improve pedestrian permeability and movement through the city. Features could include, new surfacing (including potential areas for shared surface), improved street furniture suite, decluttering of the existing streetscape, and revised spatial layouts where opportunities exist.

4.5.6

Potential Bus Priority Option The preferred option for the modification of the one-way system in Lancaster will, by necessity, consist of the most deliverable aspects of each of the options presented above. This is due to the need to find a balance between the set of competing factors inherent in designing traffic management measures. Unfortunately, due to the limitations of the TRIPS model used to compare the effects of the various gyratory proposals, it has not been possible to model bus lanes and other priority measures within the context of this study. As a result, it is difficult to form firm conclusions about a preferred option for traffic routeing in Lancaster City Centre.

As a general statement of policy however, and in light of the available modelling results presented above, it is felt that the modifications should not be made to increase capacity for

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

97

general traffic. This is due to the general principle of reducing dependence on the private car by providing realistic and sustainable alternatives. Since several schemes such as Rapid Transit and Park & Ride have been proposed to attempt to encourage travellers out of the car and onto public transport, it is felt that the one-way system should be modified to complement this and prioritise public transport by reducing capacity for the private car and reinforcing the concept of interceptor car parks.

As such, one potential option is that both northbound and southbound general traffic routes should be reduced to a single lane, with the resultant spare capacity given over to bus-lane shared between BRT and conventional bus use. The traffic management system would then become a variant of either Option J or Option K (Figure 4.17), although anecdotal evidence has shown that contra flow option may be preferable due to the improved safety of depositing passengers on the shopping centre side of the system. The preferred arrangement for these options is described more fully below.

The main one-way system itself would remain in place although it would be reduced to one lane of general traffic circulating in a clockwise direction. Bus lanes would then be provided for BRT and other general buses on this section and both with-flow and contra-flow systems have merit in this case. Whilst with-flow systems are considered safer and leave less room for driver error, they are often less well observed in terms of conformance. In addition, contra flow systems would benefit passengers accessing the retail core since the vehicles would collect and deposit passengers from the inside of the one-way system rather than the outside. In both cases, busonly cut-throughs could be created on Chapel Street for buses accessing the bus station to or from the west.

From the north-east, contra-flow bus lanes would be retained on Parliament Street and added on Kingsway to prioritise buses from the proposed M6 Junction 34 Park & Ride. General traffic travelling in these directions would be routed via Skerton Bridge (which could become two-way) and via Caton Road respectively. In the short term, bus access from the Morecambe could be enhanced via the use of with and contra-flow bus lane on Greyhound Bridge providing a convenient short-cut for buses to and from Morecambe.

At the southern end of the system, provision should be made for general traffic to access the southern interceptor car park off Thurnham Street. The simplest system would introduce a general traffic lane between the southern signalised junction and the car park access on Thurnham Street. In the case of a with-flow bus lane system, the southbound bus lane and general traffic lane would be required to merge before this access to accommodate this northbound general traffic lane. Possibly less problematic would be the contra-flow system in which the northbound bus lane would begin at the car park access at which point the general traffic would be forced to turn into the car park. There is the potential for a bus gating system at this location to enforce this traffic management system.

Finally, consideration should be given to bus priority on Meeting House Lane in the event of general traffic being removed or reduced from this link by means of a possible new road access to the south. This is in recognition of the inherent difficulties in accessing Luneside East and West and the Lancaster Industrial Estate. In this case, BRT or other buses could route via Meeting House Lane between the proposed new Lune Bridge and the one-way system, requiring buses to be prioritised on this link.

4.5.7

Phasing Phasing will be an important consideration in the modification of the Lancaster City Centre oneway system. As with any other large-scale scheme, attention must be given to the ordering of construction in order to maximise deliverability and benefit at each stage.

In the case of the potential option noted above, it is felt that the work fits neatly into a set of four distinct stages within each of which a number of crucial system elements come on-stream.

These stages are envisaged to include the following: Stage 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Enhanced Bus Priority from the North and West Introduce enhanced bus priority along Morecambe Road especially at its junction with the A683 Morecambe bypass; Introduce Greyhound Bridge contra flow bus lane; Allow two-way traffic on Skerton Bridge and A683 Morecambe Road (eastern section); Introduce Kingsway contra flow bus lane and bus priority up to Junction 34 of the M6;

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

98

Introduce complementary bus priority on Meeting House Lane.

Stage 2 – Kingsway Gyratory Modification Allow two-way traffic to flow on Caton Road (southern section) and Bulk Road.

Stage 3 – Main Gyratory Bus Lanes Introduce bus lanes to Cable Street and China Street.

Introduce bus-only access to bus station to east and west on Chapel Street.

Stage 4 – Complete Bus Lanes around Main Gyratory Introduce bus lanes to King Street, North Road, and Thurnhan Street maintaining direct access to the southern car park for northbound traffic on Thurnham Street.

Given a timescale of roughly 5 years for each of these phases to allow for planning, securing funding, and roadspace reallocation, it could be reasonably expected that the entire scheme could be implemented within 20 years. It should be noted that later phases particularly are heavily dependent on the implementation and success of complementary schemes such as Park & Ride and Rapid Transit and hence likely timescales will be affected by the progress of these.

The preferred options presented above for one-way system modifications have been designed to represent the best use of available roadspace to promote sustainable modes and reduce traffic congestion and road danger. It should be reiterated that such a significant reduction in the road capacity of the one-way system for general traffic can and should only be accompanied by a significant set of improvements to sustainable transport modes such as the proposed Park & Ride strategy, BRT system, northern and southern interceptor car parks etc.

Without these schemes in place, public resentment towards a perceived worsening of the traffic situation in Lancaster will be high and the scheme untenable as a result.

4.5.8

Costing Whilst the costs involved in maintaining, enforcing and educating the public about the modifications the gyratory system will undoubtedly be high, it should be noted that the initial capital cost of this scheme is expected to be low, especially given that it may be spread over the five stages mentioned above. In this way, the scheme represents good value for money in its terms of the high impact upon traffic volumes it is expected to have.

It may be assumed that bus lanes are required for each of the three one-way systems, although the majority of these will have already been accounted for in costing the rapid transit system mentioned earlier. It is estimated that the excess requirement is around 1km which, at the prices used earlier of £1.4million per km, represents an investment of approximately £1.4 million.

4.5.9

Dalton Square As an additional scheme to complement the review of the one-way system, mention must be made of potential enhancements to Dalton Square, which, at the administrative core of the city, is an under-utilised asset currently dominated by vehicular traffic. Whilst this scheme is presented here, it is only an example to indicate what could be achieved in terms of public realm improvements if highway capacity was reduced in the city centre.

In this respect, a number of indicative options are presented, which involve the removal of vehicular traffic from partial or whole sections of the area to provide more priority to pedestrians and create an area of quality public realm.

The main features of two potential options are described and shown below in Figures 4.21 and 4.22:

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Figure 4.21: Dalton Square â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Conservative Option

Main Features Retaining the existing structure of the square, including the wall and mature trees.

Creating paved junction squares at the corners of the square to define the edges, improve pedestrian permeability across the road and reduce vehicle dominance.

Resurfacing and reducing the width of the gyratory to reduce vehicle dominance, and unify the gyratory with the square.

Improving connections between the Town Hall and the square.

99

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

100

Figure 4.22: Dalton Square â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Radical Option

Main Features Retaining the statue and some trees.

Removing wall as it isolates the inner square and creates a barrier to permeability.

Removing key trees to open views of the Town Hall to improve the relationship between the Town Hall and the square.

Creating a formal hard paved event space outside the Town Hall.

In ground fountains provide interest and play opportunities while not preventing use of the space for events/ceremonies etc.

Creating stepped lawns to maintain a sense of green.

Creating paved junction squares at the corners of the square to define the edges, improve pedestrian permeability across the road and reduce vehicular dominance.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

101

Both options retain the Victoria Monument, donated to Lancaster by Lord Ashton in 1907, at the heart of the Square and would ban the left-turn movements from the gyratory onto Nelson Street. The photographs below show the Georgian Queen Square in Bristol that, although larger in size, provides an example of a Square that has undergone a successful makeover and has increased pedestrian priority at the expense of the motorised vehicle.

Queen Square, Bristol

As with Dalton Square, which is affected by close proximity to the A6, Queen Square was adversely impacted on by the construction of a dual carriageway through the Square. With the help of Heritage Lottery funding, the square which combines tree lined walks and gravel squares, was fully restored in 2003. It homes approximately seventy successful businesses, as well as providing a venue for, among other things, music and outdoor theatre events. The restoration has used the best conservation and renovation practices to achieve restoration of the 1800 original layouts and a final phase involved creating a new public space connecting the square with the Centre Promenade.

Dalton Square itself has recently benefited from surfacing improvements and the reorganisation of parking, which now provides approximately 20 short-stay parking bays. The Square provides a rare open space in the City Centre and offers a chance to relax.

Dalton Square, Lancaster

In order to facilitate the creation of an enhanced Dalton Square, it would be necessary to reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic, in particular on Nelson Street immediately outside the Town Hall and consider the total removal of parking opportunities. This would be informed by a wider parking and access study, which would be required to understand demand and also servicing and accessing requirements. Any scheme progressed for Dalton Square would also need to consider and enhance the key desire lines between the expansive parking on Nelson Street and Bulk Street (Nelson Street, Charterhouse and Moor Mills) and pedestrian core of the City Centre via Sulyard Street and the passage directly between Dalton Square and Charterhouse Car Park.

Though perhaps not the best package for this analysis, the existing TRIPS model was used to investigate the impact of removing links on Nelson Street. The key results are as follows: -

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

4.5.10

102

Significant increase on traffic flows on parallel George Street and Moor Lane eastbound, may have a noticeable impact on George Street.

Redistribution of small number of trips via Bulk Road/Edward Street.

Slight increase on gyratory northbound on King Street/Cable Street (additional 20-30 trips).

Slight decrease on gyratory southbound on North Street and Thurnham Street (decrease of 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 30 trips).

Significant reduction in through trips along eastbound only Common Garden Street, James Street, Brock Street (approximately 100 trips).

Slight increase in trips on Spring Garden Street (additional 20-30, though not significant).

Additional trips via Dale Street and Quarry Road (approximately 30 trips).

No significant impact on the wider network.

Additional Highway Schemes Further to the projects presented above, a number of complementary highway schemes may be necessary in Lancaster City Centre in order to reduce delay and congestion for those vehicles still choosing to enter the one-way system, and to improve safety and reduce severance for pedestrians and cyclists.

Whilst the nature of this work will undoubtedly require further study in order to properly target the most critical areas, one suggestion is to upgrade the roundabout junction between the A6 South Road and the A588 Ashton Road at the south of the city. This junction is currently a large barrier to movement during the congested peak hour periods and is also a major source of severance for pedestrians and cyclists. A proposal to improve this might include replacing the existing arrangement with a signalised junction to increase capacity, and to install some high quality pedestrian crossing facilities (puffin or toucan if levels of cycling are predicted to warrant an off-road solution). Further detailed modelling and design would be required to identify whether it is worth progressing with signalising the junction.

In addition to these proposals, gateway treatment of this junction could be used to better announce arrival into Lancaster City Centre from the south. This could take the form of a large work of public art and high quality gateway.

4.5.11

Conclusion To conclude this section, it is clear that the number of options for improving and reviewing the Lancaster traffic management system is large and varied. Whilst there are some measures whose benefits are immediately apparent such as the Dalton Square proposals noted above, the main purpose of this project is to improve traffic levels within the city by reallocating roadspace and reviewing one-way provision. However, the conclusion at this point must be that further investigation is required as it is not possible to determine a preferred strategy with the tools currently available. This is clear given the relative ineffectiveness of the TRIPS transport model at approximating bus lanes or roadspace given over to anything other than general traffic.

As such, it is recommended that a micro-simulation model of Lancaster City Centre that may adequately account for the effect of single use vehicle lanes be developed. This model, created using VISSIM or PARAMICS, would be geared specifically towards investigating the effects of each gyratory option on traffic levels and would be much better equipped to compare the benefits and disbenefits of each option proposed for the one-way system.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

103

Lancaster Gyratory Review - Implications on the Transport Vision and Strategy Economy – Resolving congestion and journey time unreliability will ensure access and movement is maximised and could potentially encourage business and employees that were previously deterred from locating in the District.

Air Quality and the Environment – Reductions in the volume and queuing of traffic in the vicinity of the City Centre will have obvious benefits on the local air quality and would thereby assist in meeting the targets of the Air Quality Action Plan. Additional benefits include the potential reallocation of roadspace to sustainable transport modes or public realm enhancements.

Accessibility – The provision of enhanced public transport routes and priority to public transport can enhance access to employment and services, particularly for cross-city trips.

Quality of Life – The major impacts of the scheme will, depending on the level of intervention, include a reduced frustration associated with trips into the City Centre and potentially an enhanced City Centre experience.

Congestion – Successful resolution to congestion and its associated problems is dependent on the implementation of an improved public transport offer and the utilisation of demand management techniques to get drivers out of their cars (‘Carrot and Stick’).

4.6

Morecambe Town Centre Improvements and Masterplan A key scheme for Morecambe, which combines significant regeneration with high quality transport infrastructure improvements and enhancements to the public realm, is that of promoting a Masterplan for Morecambe. Whilst some public realm improvements may be achievable in the near future, it is felt that a comprehensive Town Centre Masterplan would tie these improvements together to ensure that the key facets of regeneration such as urban design, access and movement, property market development and sustainability are coherent and in particular linked to the tourism strategy for Morecambe.

Two areas are identified as being particularly important in terms of improving the functioning and economy of Morecambe. Firstly Morecambe’s seafront (incorporating Marine Road and the Promenade), which is Morecambe’s premier tourist attraction and essentially the raison d’etre of the traditional seaside resort aspect of the town. Second, is the currently underutilised and poorly developed gateway to the waterfront opposite the rail station, consisting of the market, and bounded by Central Drive, Marine Road and Northumberland Street. This section will briefly explore the potential of these areas for enhancing the town’s offer and the benefit to the future planning of schemes afforded by a comprehensive Masterplan.

4.6.1

Morecambe Promenade Enhancements Morecambe as a resort has, like many similar seaside towns in the UK, declined greatly in terms of popularity and resultant affluence over recent years. The consequence has been a major drop in vitality, investment and use of the available amenities that front onto Marine Road. Subsequently, this has left many buildings in great need of renewal and refurbishment.

This is true of both vacant and occupied buildings as the photographs below show:

Vacant and ‘tired’ shop frontages on Marine Road

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

104

In addition, pedestrian facilities are not considered conducive to free-flowing movement, which is due in part to the existence of the busy A589 which runs along the length of Morecambeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waterfront. This creates significant issues of severance between the seashore and the shops and businesses and is further contributing to their general decline.

Views north east and south west along Marine Road Figures 4.23 and 4.24 show select link analysis undertaken on the A589 Marine Road and highlight the expected origins and destinations of through-trips using this link. It may be seen that origins and destinations are almost exclusively limited to the coast road corridor with westbound trips originating from Carnforth and surrounding locations, and eastbound trips originating in and around Heysham. This would indicate that, in terms of through trips, this route is currently a valuable transport route. Despite this, the analysis also indicates that the majority (around 70%) of trips using this link are local trips and hence are largely removable from the network with appropriate mitigating factors, such as enhanced car parking facilities and public transport accessibility.

For this reason, and assuming that a proportion of the current through-trips may be diverted to use the new Heysham to M6 Link Road instead, it is considered ultimately advantageous to reduce the traffic carrying capacity of the A589 (Marine Road) through Morecambe, thereby reducing severance and creating more of a shared-use route, more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists. Particular focus could be given to providing and improving crossing points and it is hoped that this will help to stimulate the economy of the businesses on the frontage and open up the promenade for a wider base of people without disadvantaging the majority of traffic along the route. In addition, it is intended that the rapid transit route mentioned earlier in this document will serve the promenade between Lord Street and Central Drive, thereby further increasing the accessibility of the front to the residents of Lancaster and Morecambe and providing a connection with the regional and national rail network at Lancaster and Morecambe rail stations.

The images below show two artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impressions of a future Marine Road Central at two different levels of intervention. It may be noted that the visualisations include traffic calming, shared-use roadspace and significant public realm enhancements.

(Inset: existing view of Marine Road) Visualisations of Marine Road Medium/High Intervention

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

105

As a complementary scheme, it is also proposed to create two areas of gateway parking within Morecambe located at either end of the upgraded Marine Road section. These will act to, subject to detailed parking studies, complement the consolidated parking areas opposite the rail station (described more fully in Chapter 4.2.6) and provide high quality parking for those wishing to access the town by car. Whilst it is ultimately envisaged that these will be linked along the seafront by the rapid transit system, as an early win there is the potential to introduce a tourist transport system along the promenade in the short term, which could be similar in style to the road trains shown in the images below.

Examples of Road Train schemes

Whilst the vision for Morecambe seeks to reduce the level of through-traffic on Marine Road, the retention of traffic along this route, adds to its vitality and respects the classification of the route, ensuring that sufficient capacity is retained to cater for the peak demands. Importantly, Morecambe Promenade and the views across Morecambe Bay are an important tourist destination and should remain accessible to all. Rationalisation of parking along the seafront should consider exemptions for older and disabled persons, many of whom park up and enjoy the views from the car. Accordingly, a balance needs to be struck that maintains access to the seafront for private cars, improves access for pedestrians between Morecambe Town Centre and the Promenade, enhancement to the public realm and allows for a future Rapid Transit system in the future.

4.6.2

Rail Station Gateway For those disembarking trains at Morecambeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new rail station on Central Drive, the views comprise of a large open space currently used for a major overprovision of car parking to the rear of the frontage businesses. The photographs below show this scene and highlight the under use of the available car parking spaces. Whilst during the season, these car parks are often full, an alternate arrangement of parking provision would allow alternative development options to be considered.

Morecambe Rail Station Gateway: under-utilised space

It may be seen that there is a clear line of sight from the rail station to the Midland Hotel located on Morecambeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seafront and it is proposed, as part of a wider revamp to Morecambeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

106

townscape, to use this asset to create a significant gateway for those arriving in Morecambe at this point.

Specific proposals include improving on the existing walkway seen above to create a tree-lined avenue to the hotel, stimulating high quality retail on the land at either side of this walkway, including the existing market, which is vital for the character and heritage of the town, and turning poorly utilised car parking space into sustainable green space. It is felt that the location of this area, opposite one of the key gateways to Morecambe, represents a major opportunity to improve the retail, leisure and public realm offer of the centre and develop its economy in a positive direction.

Development at this location will benefit from the improved transport links described in previous sections and, due to the envisaged increase in the importance of the rail gateway with the creation of a bus, rail and BRT interchange, should be a fully accessible to a large volume of people. In this way, any proposed development is expected to enhance levels of social inclusion and bring wider benefits to the town of Morecambe.

The following indicative sketches show the potential of this area at three different levels of intervention. They highlight the need for striking a balance between development, pedestrian space, transport links and car parking.

Figure 4.25: Morecambe Rail Station Gateway â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Low Intervention

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

107

Figure 4.26: Morecambe Rail Station Gateway â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Medium Intervention

Figure 4.27: Morecambe Rail Station Gateway â&#x20AC;&#x201C; High Intervention

Key to the success of the scheme will be ensuring successful walking and cycling linkages to Morecambe Town Centre, Morecambe Promenade and the Urban Splash development with Midland Hotel as the iconic flagship. The sketch below (Figure 4.28) shows how streets can be designed to ensure that pedestrians are given greater priority over that of car users and can contribute to a more aesthetically appeasing streetscape.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

108

Figure 4.28: Potential Marine Road Cross-section

4.6.3

Morecambe Masterplan In order to successfully integrate the proposals noted above with other regeneration initiatives within Morecambe, it is recommended that a new Masterplan be commissioned for the Town Centre as a whole. This document, when produced, could be used as an official statement of policy and may form part of a Local Development Framework (LDF), Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) or otherwise. Its main function would be to bring together the disparate strands of regeneration into one cohesive whole and present a strategy beneficial to each.

In addition to providing guidance on the levels of regeneration, public realm treatment and new development required for the two key areas of Morecambe noted above, the Masterplan would highlight a number of quick wins, which could be undertaken in a short timescale and relatively inexpensively. Such measures include significant gateway treatment at Morecambe’s inner and outer entry points – such as the Euston Road/Queen Street gyratory and the Morecambe Road/Westgate roundabout junction – and tackling some of Morecambe’s larger severance causing junctions by providing crossings and suggesting redesigns to improve permeability.

It is considered necessary to enhance the key gateways to Morecambe to boost the image and perception of the resort. As discussed, one of the key understated arrival points is at the Morecambe Road/Westgate intersection. The sketch below shows how minor improvements at the Gateway to Morecambe could change the first impressions of the resort and improve the visitor experience.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

109

Figure 4.29: Morecambe Gateway Features (visualisation)

The standard format of a Town Centre Masterplan includes a baseline analysis report, in which specific issues and character areas within the study area are identified in the key fields of urban design, access and movement, commercial development, tourism and environmental.

Remedial options are then identified via a period of public consultation, stakeholder workshops, and steering group meetings. Finally, a Masterplan is prepared, which includes frameworks for change in each of the key areas noted above, demonstrator projects for each of the character areas, identification of quick-win projects to raise the profile of the Masterplan and gather support for longer term projects, and a final vision for the centre within a given time period.

It is felt that a document such as this could have a tremendous impact on Morecambe Town Centre in designing a vision that exploits the many assets of the resort and removes the key barriers to future development.

Figure 4.30 shows further the main proposals for this area of Morecambe. It may be seen that both the solutions described above seek to better integrate the Town Centre offer with the promenade and are integral to the delivery of sustainable transport solutions 4.6.4

Phasing In terms of phasing each of the elements of the Town Centre enhancements scheme, it is clear that the first step should be to produce a comprehensive Masterplan for the area including the seafront and Rail Station Gateway. This will provide a context for future development and will set the scene for the phasing of subsequent schemes. The timescale for such a document is estimated at around a year based upon previous similar examples.

Work can then commence on detailed design work for the various proposed schemes and it is suggested that reducing the severance effect of the A589 (Marine Road Central) be one of the earliest of these in order to create a significant public realm improvement in a highly visible location. The aim should be to complete these enhancements within phase two of the strategy (5-15 years) to correspond with any new rapid transit link being constructed linking Morecambe to Lancaster.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

110

The third stage of the improvements within Morecambe should be focused around the Rail Station Gateway. Given that this may require a comprehensive redesign and construction of new units and public realm adjacent to the pedestrian route between the station and the Midland Hotel, it is recognised that the full scheme may take some years to implement. For this reason, it is suggested that this scheme is completed within a 10 to 20 year time-frame (phase three) so that early work may concentrate on the Marine Road Central enhancements scheme.

Finally any remaining projects and improvements suggested within the Masterplan should be completed within twenty years of an approved Masterplan.

4.6.5

Costing Given the four phases noted above, the usual cost of commissioning a Town Centre Masterplan is between £50,000 and £100,000. Funding for subsequent schemes is usually largely raised by private developers. In total, it is probably reasonable to assume a cost of around £2 million for the initial seafront enhancements, and the £5 million each for the Rail Gateway and the final set of enhancement schemes. This leads to an approximate total cost of around £12 million.

Whilst this is heavily dependent on the size and nature of the schemes proposed, it is felt that these figures offer an idea of the order of magnitude spending required in order to revitalise the fortunes of Morecambe.

4.6.6

Conclusion In terms of Morecambe Town Centre, the recommendations within the context of this strategy are clear. It is felt that Morecambe would benefit greatly from a comprehensive Masterplan to integrate and inform planning policy over the course of the next 20 years. This would not only serve to provide a framework, upon which planning approval and development may be based, but also to ensure that the needs of tourism are considered. The visitor economy is the town’s principal industry and it is essential that day trippers and staying visitors are accommodated and encouraged.

As part of the Masterplan, it is further recommended to enhance Morecambe’s seafront and Rail Station Gateway as a matter of priority. Seafront improvements would include upgrades to pedestrian permeability and crossing of the A589 Marine Road, investment in frontage business and integration with the proposed Rapid Transit scheme noted earlier. In terms of the Rail Gateway, the propositions are to develop the area immediately opposite Morecambe rail station providing a broad avenue of high quality retail and leisure facilities with line-of-sight linkage to the Midland Hotel on the seafront.

Further improvements to Morecambe could include the enhancement of the West End area including the connection of West End Road to the Rapid Transit system, and Gateway enhancements at key arrival points.

Morecambe Town Centre Improvements and Masterplan - Implications on the Transport Vision and Strategy Economy – Morecambe currently accounts for a significant proportion of all day and staying visits to the Lancaster District. Improvements to access, movement and the public realm will contribute to the increased vitality of the Town Centre. Such changes will have a knock effect to Lancaster City Centre.

Air Quality and the Environment – Whilst a number of the improvements are designed to improve access and movement within Morecambe and the District itself, much of the scheme seeks to enhance the physical fabric and the general public realm.

Accessibility – The provision of enhanced public transport routes and pedestrian permeability can enhance access to employment, services, leisure opportunities and also for recreational means.

Quality of Life – The schemes listed below will have a significant benefit for residents of and visitors to Morecambe.

Congestion – Whilst a number of the schemes will promote the use of public transport at the expense of the private car, worse congestion is experienced between Morecambe and Lancaster and within the City Centre itself.

Faber Maunsell

4.7

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

111

Lancaster City Centre Congestion Charging In order for the Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy to be successful in reducing the number of car trips and encouraging substantial modal shift to public transport, walking and cycling, it is likely that further demand management measures are required, particularly in Lancaster City Centre. In this respect, it is important to consider the case for the introduction of congestion charging. As alluded to in Section 4.5, in the future, it may be desirable and feasible to modify the gyratory system in Lancaster City Centre in favour of greater bus priority.

Given that the gyratory is already congested and with projections of continuous car growth, an incentive is clearly required to discourage drivers to attempt to drive through Lancaster City Centre, especially in the case of through-trips which add to congestion but don’t contribute to the local economy.

Congestion charging provides a radical method of managing demand of traffic by adding the deterrence of an additional transport cost, whilst raising revenue to fund alternative schemes. It has been apparently successful in both Durham and London in reducing the number of car trips made into the respective City Centres, and in improving public transport service levels leading to substantial modal shift. This is of benefit not only to congestion levels in the centre but also in tackling environmental concerns and improving road safety in busy City Centres.

For congestion charging schemes to be feasible and acceptable by residents, any reduction in accessibility to one mode of travel must be accompanied, or preferably preceded, by a similar increase in another. Another key benefit of these schemes is that revenue raised from this measure may then be spent on providing elements of alternative transport arrangements including bus priority, rail improvements, intermediate modes, and Park & Ride, helping to deliver the other schemes proposed under the Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy.

In addition, generated monies may also be used to fund improvements to the pedestrian environment and to make the road network more cycle-friendly.

The charging regimes presented here are designed to complement other proposed schemes in stimulating modal shift to sustainable forms of transport and bringing about reduction in traffic levels with Lancaster City Centre. In particular, congestion charging will need to be well integrated with any gyratory modification schemes mentioned elsewhere in order to maximise the benefit of both and facilitate the traffic reductions necessary to complement the proposed reduction in general traffic capacity around the City Centre. Whilst congestion charging may be generally unpopular based upon recent national polls and negative publicity, it is undeniable given the results of other similar schemes, that congestion charging is both a powerful tool in terms of reducing dependence on the private car, and in raising revenue for improvements to public transport and sustainable travel.

A number of congestion charging options have been designed and the advantages and disadvantages of these are discussed here leading to the development of a preferred option or options for Lancaster. Consideration will also be given to the possible charging regimes and hours of operation of the charging scheme, and the likely effect of each of these different scenarios.

4.7.1

Congestion Charging Options As a means of managing car traffic demand in Lancaster City Centre to complement planned improvements to public transport and traffic management, five congestion charging options have been considered. These options are presented in the set of diagrams Figures 4.31–4.35.

1. Toll Bridges - The simplest form of congestion charging (and potentially the easiest to enforce) would be a tolling system on the general traffic Lune Bridges. This scheme would be similar to the Mersey Tunnels toll on Merseyside in which vehicles are charged different amounts depending on their type with cyclists and motorcycles travelling free, and HGVs paying the maximum toll. Collection could be via a ‘basket and barrier’ system in which money is thrown into a basket which sorts the different coin denominations and opens the barrier. Alternatively, a quicker passage could be accomplished using a pre-pay transponder based technology which opens the barrier automatically.

2. Main Gyratory Cordon – A similar scheme to London’s cordon charge could be implemented within Lancaster City Centre in which drivers are charged once for each time they enter a specific area. The simplest case with this system would include the main gyratory only and vehicles would be charged if they entered an area bounded by Cable Street, China Street, King Street, Thurnham Street, Dalton Square, and North Road

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

112

inclusively. Enforcement in London is accomplished using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which ensures that all vehicles that enter the cordon are charged. Collection can be undertaken using a variety of methods including pre-pay or smart cards topped up using means of the phone or internet.

3. Full Gyratory Cordon – This scheme would be similar to that mentioned above except the congestion charging zone would be expanded to include the northern gyratory system formed by Parliament Street, Kingsway, Caton Road and Bulk Road. It would also by extension include all journeys across the Lune Bridges. This expansion may be justifiable given that a large proportion of current congestion problems occur at or near the northern gyratory and Lune Bridges.

4. City Centre Wide Cordon – Option four would see the same congestion charging scheme introduced throughout the City Centre, charging drivers for entering the core central area.

This area is envisaged to be bounded by the West Coast Mainline to the west, by the River Lune to the north, and by the canal to the south and east. This large area may seem excessive, but it is likely that a scheme of this magnitude would include a substantially reduced charge when compared with the smaller cordons, striking a balance between the demand managed area and the severity of demand management.

5. Area Charging – The final presented option for congestion charging in Lancaster splits the City Centre into several character themed zones. These include the ‘Heritage Zone’ incorporating the Castle, Shire Hall, the historic Roman Fort, and the sports ground to the north west of the City Centre; the ‘Retail Zone’ which includes the main shopping streets, the market, the library and the bus station; the ‘Business Zone’ including the Council Offices, the Town Hall, and Dalton Square; and the ‘Northern Zone’ which comprises of the northern gyratory section of the centre. The philosophy behind this scheme is that a car user will be charged depending on how many of these zones he or she enters by car with the greatest charges being ascribed to those that drive between three or more. This is designed to discourage through trips and car journeys between individual locations within the City Centre. This scheme also has the potential to be linked to the Interceptor Car Park strategy with a ‘pay-once’ ticketing system allowing vehicles to enter the relevant zone, park in a car park, and leave by the same route.

Views of Northern and Southern Extremities of Proposed Congestion Charging Zone

4.7.2

Benefit and Disbenefit Analysis The benefits and disbenefits of these schemes are discussed in Table 4.6.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

113

Table 4.6â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Congestion Charging Benefit and Disbenefit Analysis Option 1. Toll Bridges

2. Main Gyratory Cordon

Benefits Discourages car trips over bridges which are most congested sections of the network.

Captures all trips between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Collects toll for each journey over bridges maximising revenue.

Simplest to implement and requires least equipment.

3. Full Gyratory Cordon

4. City Centre Wide Cordon

Discourages car trips on some of the busiest sections of the network.

Does not penalise those visiting the city outskirts for work or leisure.

Predominantly acts on commuter traffic

Discourages car trips around the busy main gyratory.

Discourages car trips over the two bridges and the northern gyratory which is the most congested section of the network.

Does not penalise those that live or work on the city outskirts.

Predominantly acts on commuter traffic.

Large area maximises number of affected trips and consequent reduction in car trips.

Generates larger revenue allowing congestion charge to be lower and thus more acceptable.

Smaller resultant number of car trips could allow the hours of operation to be reduced outside of peak time.

Disbenefits Penalises trip makers between the City Centre and north west i.e. Morecambe.

Potential to increase the divide between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Limits revenue generation.

Limited impact on main gyratory.

Does not discourage trips between the M6 Junction 34 and the City Centre and south via the A683.

Generates less revenue than wider cordon charging.

Does not impact on all bridge traffic which is an area of key congestion.

Discourages all City Centre and through-trips equally without distinction.

May induce rat-running across back streets to avoid the charging zone.

Does not penalise trips between the A6 and the A683 to the north of the city.

Discourages all City Centre and through trips equally without distinction.

May induce rat running across back streets to avoid the charging zone.

Large number of people affected may lead to resentment and unpopularity of scheme promoters.

Maximum residential population affected necessitating special exemption scheme.

Discourages all City Centre and through trips equally without distinction.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option 5. Area Charging

4.7.3

Benefits Penalises through-trips to a greater extent than work or leisure trips to the City Centre.

Penalises least the trips to the edge of the City Centre and Interceptor Car Parks.

Separates and defines routeing for different City Centre user classes.

Penalises those that use a car to travel between destinations within the City Centre.

114

Disbenefits Generates less revenue than standard cordon charging due to hierarchy of charges.

Is most expensive to implement with zone based signage and charge enforcement and collection.

System is confusing to City Centre newcomers.

Does not penalise all trips over the congested Lune Bridges to the same extent reducing charge effect compared with the full cordons.

Conclusion Despite the benefit and disbenefit analysis undertaken on the five options as noted above, it is felt in general that if congestion charging were to be implemented in Lancaster City Centre at any time, it would have to be towards the end of this 20 year vision and strategy. This is due to the need for substantial improvements to public transport and alternative modes of travel before such schemes may become acceptable to the public. The congestion charge in London was implemented in a climate of regulated, centralised public transport control and as such had received large-scale financial support from Government for many years prior to the introduction of the charge. Any similar scheme in Lancaster would require a similar level of transport investment prior to its introduction. Furthermore, the costs of developing the scheme, purchasing and installing the required infrastructure and operation costs could also be prohibitive for a city the size of Lancaster.

In the meantime, it is likely that the success or otherwise of the selected Local Authority Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) schemes will provide a model for potential application to the 3 Lancaster District. Cambridge in particular, as a similar size to Lancaster, has submitted a bid to the Government worth ÂŁ500 million for a package of transport improvements to tackle congestion in the area. It is considered that the package, which includes proposals for a congestion charge and substantial improvements to public transport, is essential for the continued success and prosperity of the city, particularly in view of proposals for housing expansion in the area.

It is clear that perhaps the fairest form of congestion charge would be felt with the Area Charging regime described above, which could distinguish between City centre users and charge different levels accordingly. This type of congestion charging is, however, the most expensive to implement and also the most confusing and illegible to City Centre visitors and those not familiar with the system, and would require large-scale investment in signage and promotional literature in order to create a fully comprehensible charging regime. As a result, and given that the proposed congestion charge area is relatively small compared with the operational and proposed schemes elsewhere in the UK, it is felt that congestion charging may not represent the most effective use of such large-scale funding.

For these reasons, it is concluded that, subject to further study and detailed analysis, congestion charging as a scheme should not be proposed for Lancaster City Centre in the context of this vision and strategy. Instead, it is expected that the most substantial modal shift will occur as a result of the high quality improvements to public transport, and the alternatives offered by the various â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;new generationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Park & Ride sites noted earlier. In addition, as mentioned previously, an alternative low cost form of congestion charging could be implemented at the proposed new motorway slip roads north of Galgate adjacent to Lancaster University. The tolling of these, linked to Park & Ride at this location, will effectively apply a congestion charge targeted at one of the key congestion hotspots in the district without the need of the costly and less publicly acceptable City Centre charging schemes described above.

3

It is understood that since this report was drafted, the Cambridge bid has been withdrawn.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

5

Strategy, Phasing and Costing

5.1

115

Introduction In this chapter, further consideration will be given to the breaking down of each of the final schemes described in the previous chapter into three component phases, with Phase One up to 5 years in the future, Phase Two as 5 to 15 years and Phase Three as 10 to 20 years. In this way, it is envisaged that the entire final strategy for the Lancaster District could be implemented within 20 years, although that is of course dependent on a variety of factors not least availability of funding and prevailing economic conditions.

In addition to this phasing process, an attempt will be made to realistically cost the component scheme elements using suitable benchmark schemes from elsewhere in the country, and by making some assumptions. The costs presented below are therefore drawn from a variety of sources including previous work for GMPTE, Merseytravel, and others in an attempt to give a realistic flavour for the quantum of cost incurred for each scheme. It should be noted, however, that Faber Maunsell has not been commissioned as cost consultants and therefore the information is more speculatory in nature and should not be taken as definitive costs in any way. In addition, assumptions are based largely upon common sense and reason and do not reflect the current industry standard in costing of transport schemes.

For each scheme element, a selection of information is presented. Firstly, an estimate of the order of capital cost is noted along with the organisation that, it is envisaged, will be primarily responsible for the raising of scheme funds. As before, this is opinion only and should not be taken as definitive. An attempt is then made within the table to estimate the annual running costs for each scheme element, and the annual revenue that may be expected in order to recoup some of these, along with any assumptions made during this calculation. Finally, a figure is provided which estimates the Year 1 expenditure accounting for any revenue expected.

It may be noted that in some cases, no cost or revenue is expected. This may be for schemes in which no direct revenue is taken such as road schemes (although funding may be recouped via Road Taxing). In other cases this is necessary to avoid double counting cost and revenue as in the case of BRT extensions or re-routeing for which cost and revenue may already have been accounted for.

5.2

Phasing and Costing In light of the emergence of the short list of developed schemes presented here and with consideration given to the scheme-specific phasing and costing requirements noted for each, the following table has been produced which groups each identified scheme element into the three phases and presents an indication of expected cost and revenue which is indicative as caveated above.

The key issue is that this table should be read as indicative and that items can change or be shared across categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; perhaps the best case is funding where funds for a scheme can be created across several streams of funding potential.

It should also be noted that this strategy provides a framework for transport investment. There will be new schemes that are identified as part of future development proposals which need to be assessed in relation to the strategy. Some of the schemes identified in this report may be subject to alternative funding sources which may allow them, or an alternative, to be advanced to an earlier phase, e.g. proposals to alleviate congestion in Galgate as part of the University/Science Park development.

Figures 5.1 to 5.4 highlight the build-up of major scheme elements over time and show how the phased approach is expected to be implemented over the next 20 years.

5.3

Future Funding With respect to funding, we highlight a number of potential sources of funding for the transport elements of schemes.

Faber Maunsell

5.3.1

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

116

Local Transport Plan (LTP) The LTP is the traditional funding mechanism for funding transport schemes. In November 2007, Lancashire County Council received its three year local transport capital settlement in a letter from the Department of Transport. The local transport block capital allocation was £28.1 million in 2008/09, £30.5 million in 2009/10 and £33.8 million in 2010/11 covering both ‘Integrated Transport’ and ‘Highways Capital Maintenance’.

The settlement letter reaffirmed the findings of the Eddington Report advocating ‘small local schemes to improve traffic flows, promote buses, cycling and walking, enable effective road maintenance and enhance local travel networks represent excellent value for money and make a real difference to local people and their access to local services and jobs’.

It is clear the current levels of LTP funding for Lancashire County Council, and that which would be allocated to schemes in Lancaster District, would not meet expectations against the schemes forwarded, however we suggest that many of the schemes and costs identified should be focused towards delivering through engaging other bodies and sources of funding.

5.3.2

Local Authority Funding In addition to the capital grant funding afforded by the LTP, local authorities are able to fund certain schemes with a strong justification from a wider local pot. However, owing to economic pressures and demands, such as housing and education, this is likely to be difficult.

5.3.3

Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) For major transport schemes, currently all those over £5m, there is a necessity for the scheme to be subjected to and be successful in the regional funding prioritisation process. This involves the development of a business case and an associated Regional Appraisal Summary Table.

5.3.4

Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) In the July 2004 White Paper, 'The Future of Transport', the Secretary of State announced the creation of the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). The Fund will support:

The costs of smarter, innovative local transport packages that combine demand management measures, such as road pricing, with measures to encourage modal shift, and better bus services; Local mechanisms which raise new funding for transport schemes; and Regional, inter-regional and local schemes that is beneficial to national productivity.

TIF is a recent funding initiative and currently broken down into two distinct components (Productivity and Congestion). Access to TIF is subject to a bidding process and for successful authorities provides the opportunity to inject significant resources into transport schemes of local and regional importance.

For the congestion component, emphasis has been placed on participating authorities to link schemes with road user charging to tackle existing and developing congestion problems, trials which are perhaps designed to inform a potential national system. For the productivity element, this is primarily focused on rail infrastructure.

At present, a number of local authorities including Greater Manchester, Cambridge and the West of England Partnership, including Bristol, are competing for funding from an initial pot of money.

5.3.5

Developer Contributions Contributions from developers are a useful source in cross-funding schemes, however rarely is this likely to be sufficient in itself. The key is to ensure that all applications of any scale are considered in light of providing towards the bigger picture rather than providing unlinked local benefits alone.

In Lancaster City Centre for example, it is essential that appropriate contributions are extracted from developers of the potential developments at Kingsway and the Canal Corridor North site.

Such developer contributions should be used to build up a pot of money to deliver against a prioritised ‘wish-list’ of schemes.

5.3.6

Other We suggest that a major advantage of having a District-wide strategy or ‘goal’ is that it starts to allow other funding sources to be developed, ranging from that available via organisations such

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

117

as the North West Development Agency (NWDA), English Partnerships (EP), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) or Lancaster & Morecambe Vision itself through to that from groups such as Sustrans, or Government bodies such as specific Department for Transport initiatives – for example the round of Home Zone schemes funded as a specific challenge several years ago or more recently the Eco Towns concept. Similarly, bodies such as Network Rail have infrastructure grants and initiatives available but which need cases building before their development. Additionally, some schemes could be funded privately or via private finance initiatives.

Table 5.1 below shows a proposed phasing and expected costing of schemes, identifying which organisation would be responsible for delivering the scheme. It should be noted that the costs identified only give an indication of the likely costs. As this study was commissioned to develop a high level strategy for the district, further development and design work would be required to determine the benefits for each scheme, quantify more accurate costs and develop a business case for the improvements. The total impact of each phase is dependant on the scale of intervention for each measure. The individual impacts are provided within the coarse appraisal in Appendix A. Table 5.1: Strategy Phasing and Costing Element Reference Number

Element Name/Description

Expected Capital Cost (£million)

Responsible Party (NOT funding party)

Phase 1: (0-5years)

5

1

Morecambe Masterplan

0.2

Lancaster City Council

2

Investment in cycling facilities and infrastructure

0.25

Lancaster City Council

3

Investment in pedestrian signage and wayfinding

0.4

Lancaster City Council

4

Bus Priority extensions on A683 (Morecambe Road) including new junction with Morecambe Bypass

0.5

Lancashire County Council

5

Introduction of City Centre shuttle linking rail and bus stations, key car parks, tourist destinations and key employment locations.

0.5

Lancaster City Council/ Lancashire County Council

6

Creation of Park & Ride at White Lund Industrial Estate

14

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

7

Implementation of Bus Priority Measures on A683 (Caton Road) linking to Park & Ride

1.1

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

8

Creation of Park & Ride at Carnforth Rail Station

1.4

5

Transpennine Express/ Lancaster City Council

9

Improvements to facilities at Bare Lane, Heysham and Morecambe Stations (including Car Parking expansion)

2

Northern Rail/ Lancaster City Council

Assuming 250 spaces at £4000 per space and 2 buses at £200,000 each

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Element Reference Number

Element Name/Description

118

Expected Capital Cost (£million)

Responsible Party (NOT funding party)

10

Creation of Southern Interceptor 6 Car Park (provisionally at Auction Mart and including junction modifications)

3

Lancaster City Council/ Lancashire County Council

11

Public Realm Enhancements on Marine Road, Morecambe

4

Lancaster City Council

12

Creation of Northern Interceptor Car Park in Lancaster (part of Centros proposal)

47

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

Completion of M6 to Heysham Link Road (including P&R) Sub Total

140

Lancashire County Council/ Highways Agency

18.35

Phase 2: (5-15years)

6

13

Investment in Cycling facilities and infrastructure

0.2

Lancaster City Council

14

Main gyratory and Dalton Square 8 enhancements

1

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

15

Creation of Park & Ride at Salt Ayre adjacent to Rapid Transit

2

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

16

Creation of Park & Ride at Beaumont at intersection of M6 to Heysham Link Road with A6

2.49

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

17

Creation of ‘New Generation’ Park & Ride south of Lancaster University adjacent to new Hazelrigg Lane Slip Road

2.410

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

18

Commencement of Bus Rapid Transit between Lancaster and Morecambe Rail Stations

3

11

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

19

Extension of Bus Rapid Transit in a loop around Morecambe Town Centre via Central Drive (infrastructure only)

3.5

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

20

Automation of signals between Bare Lane and Morecambe rail stations and remote point operation between Morecambe and Heysham.

3.612

Network Rail

Feasibility study required initially Assuming 500 spaces at £8000 per space (multi-storey) 8 Further assessment required 9 Assuming 500 spaces at £4000 per space and 2 new buses at £200,000 per vehicle 10 Assuming 500 spaces at £4000 per space and 2 new buses at £200,000 per vehicle 11 Assuming 10 new vehicles at £300,000 per vehicle 12 From similar examples in London 7

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Element Reference Number

119

Element Name/Description

Expected Capital Cost (£million) 13

Responsible Party (NOT funding party)

21

Extension of Bus Rapid Transit to Lancaster Bus Station and around the one-way system adding gyratory bus lanes (infrastructure only)

3.6

22

Conversion of Lancaster and Morecambe Greenway14 to BRT specifications with adjacent pedestrian and cycle provision

7.615

23

Construction of New River Lune Bridge

816

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

24

Creation of Northbound Off-Slip Road on M6 linking with Hazelrigg Lane south of University

10

Highways Agency/ Lancashire County Council

Sub Total

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

Lancashire County Council

47.3

Phase Three: (10-20years) 25

Investment in Cycling facilities and infrastructure

0.2

Lancaster City Council

26

Remaining gyratory modifications

17

0.2

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

27

Extension of Bus Rapid Transit onstreet between Lancaster and M6 18 Junction 34 Park & Ride

1.4

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

28

Further Bus Rapid Transit Extensions in Morecambe Town Centre and West End Road

2.1

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council

29

Morecambe Masterplan Enhancements

3

Lancaster City Council

30

Enhancements to Rail Station Gateway area of Morecambe

5

Lancaster City Council/

31

Extension of Bus Rapid Transit onstreet between Lancaster and Lancaster University Park and Ride

8.7

Addition of extra southbound slip road Hazelrigg Lane and M6 linked to Park & Ride

10

20

19

32

13

Lancashire County Council/ Lancaster City Council Highways Agency/ Lancashire County Council

Assuming £1.4million per km and an extra two vehicles at £300,000 each Feasibility study required 15 Assuming £1.4million per km 4 Assuming 250 spaces at £4000 per space 16 Based on Marine Way Bridge in Southport, Merseyside 17 Further assessment required 18 Further assessment required 19 Further assessment required 20 Assuming £1.4million per km and an extra two vehicles at £1million each 14

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Element Reference Number

5.4

Element Name/Description

120

Expected Capital Cost (£million)

Sub Total

30.6

Total

96.25

Responsible Party (NOT funding party)

Heysham to M6 Link Road (Postscript) In developing this Transport Vision and Strategy, Faber Maunsell has been working to a brief that the Heysham to M6 Link Road must be assumed in the baseline scenario.

The Heysham to M6 Link Road is being brought forward by Lancashire County Council in order to provide a direct link for Morecambe and Heysham traffic (particularly for port and tourism traffic) and it has been prioritised in the upper quartile for Regional Funding. Consequently, a Business Case Submission was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) in July 2005.

In 2006, the DfT included the scheme in its 3 year list of roads it intended to fund, providing the route received planning permission and passed ‘value for money’ tests. Owing to objections, the scheme was referred to a Public Inquiry, commencing in July 2007 and concluded in August 2007. In February 2008, it was announced that the Secretary of State, in line with the decision of the Inspector, recommended that planning permission be granted for completion of the Link Road and associated highway improvements, subject to specified conditions.

Transport and traffic related concerns are specified as follows:

Details of the proposed improvements to Junction 34 of the M6 shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Secretary of State; No part of the link road shall be built until the highway works at Junction 34 have been constructed; Package of environmental improvements within Torrisholme village to be developed and implemented (including footway widening and improvements, traffic calming on B5321 and general environmental improvements); New highway shall not be opened to traffic until gateway markings have been marked out on the A6 to the south of Slyne with Hest village.

In addition, no development is permitted until this Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy has been published. An action plan of complementary traffic measures based upon the findings of the study is to be submitted to Lancashire County Council, and shall include details of the following (verbatim):

A programme for the investigation into the feasibility of establishing Park & Ride at locations other than at Junction 34 of the M6 to the north of Lancaster.

Proposals for the enhancement of bus services in the north Lancaster area including new bus lanes, bus priority at traffic lights and other measures designed to increased use of bus services.

Proposals for the enhancement of cycling including new cycle paths/lanes and other measures designed to improve cycle safety and increase the use of bicycle as a means of travel.

A timescale for each of the measures identified in the report.

A programme of measures for the enhancement of travel by modes other than the car.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

6

Final Vision and Strategy

6.1

121

Conclusion and Way Forward This work has drawn together a Transport Vision and Strategy for the Lancaster District over the next 15-20 year period. It represents a first step in establishing a clear vision across a variety of agencies, most notably Lancashire County Council as the Highway Authority and Lancaster City Council as the Planning Authority, but with responsibility for certain key transport assets and Lancaster & Morecambe Vision who are driving the economic agenda. Success will depend on the level of cross agency co-operation and the ability to respond to opportunities as and when they are presented.

Clearly, the funding of schemes is likely to require greater resources than is otherwise currently available. Therefore the strategy relies upon creativity, vision and energy to secure funding and keeping the wider vision on the table.

It is also clear that there should be a series of strands of transport related projects that have to be inter-related to each other and tied closely to land use planning. There is significant opportunity for the Lancaster District to take major steps forward in relation to its transport provision, particularly in light of the scale and nature of the urban core, being large enough for schemes to make a real difference but small enough to demonstrate real change.

The following table demonstrates the key components of the strategy.

Table 6.1: Key Interventions

Ref 1

2

Key Interventions Overcoming the reliance of Morecambe and Heysham on Lancaster.

Linking Morecambe and Lancaster more efficiently.

Key Solutions

3

Connecting the rural hinterland.

4

Improve interchange within and between modes.

5

Reducing trip making by nonsustainable modes.

6 7

Developing around accessible/sustainable nodes.

Reallocating roadspace to non-car modes.

8

Effective servicing.

M6 to Heysham Link Road

Rapid Transit Link New River Lune Bridge Enhanced Rail services and facilities New Generation Park & Ride sites (incorporating Park & Cycle and collection/drop-off facilities) DRT expansion Increased evening and weekend bus provision New/enhanced cycle facilities High quality interchange facilities Expansion of cycle parking facilities City Centre Shuttle service Integrated Ticketing Park & Ride schemes Bus Priority Measures Parking Pricing Strategy Enhanced cycling and pedestrian facilities Land-use planning policies Masterplanning Introduction of bus lanes Introduction of cycle lanes City Centre Gyratory Review City Centre Gyratory Review City Centre Home Delivery Service Consolidation Centre

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Ref 9

Key Interventions Maximising cycling networks/investment.

122

Key Solutions

10 11

Supporting existing and proposed employment locations.

Capturing longer term parking further out.

12

Developing walking routes for locals.

13

Better land use in Morecambe.

14

Providing clarity in the road network.

Improving poor air quality and environment.

15

16 17

18

Resolving Lancaster City Centre traffic circulation.

Address future growth of city centre traffic and associated impacts.

Reduce incidence of collision clusters â&#x20AC;&#x201C; continuous improvement.

District-wide cycle hire Cycle Parking provision Missing link targeting Training initiatives Enhanced security/maintenance of routes Travel Planning Increased evening and weekend bus provision Park & Ride Interceptor Car Parks Variable Message Signing Lancaster City Centre Gyratory Review Consideration to Congestion Charging Public realm enhancements New pedestrian crossing facilities/footbridges Travel Planning Central Morecambe Masterplan Signing Strategy Highway Design Guide Lancaster City Centre Gyratory Review Travel Planning Car Sharing/Car clubs Integrated Ticketing Park & Ride schemes Bus Priority Measures Enhanced cycling and pedestrian facilities Lancaster City Centre Gyratory Review Travel Planning Stringent Parking Restrictions Developer Contributions to Public Transport Highway Design Guide Road Safety Education Collision Analysis

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

123

Appendices

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

124

Appendix A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Long List of Schemes The following table presents the full long list of schemes put forward under the Coarse Appraisal process.

Table A.1: Long List of Potential Schemes

Pedestrian Schemes

Pedestrian Signage and Information Strategy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly at key arrival points (e.g. Bristol Legible City).

Traffic-free centre/severance of through routes.

Creation of 20mph zones/Introduction of blanket urban area 20mph limit.

20mph zone in Lancaster City Centre.

Further pedestrianisation and Shared Surface Schemes (e.g.

Lancaster City Centre, Morecambe Centre, Morecambe Promenade, Market Street - Carnforth (CARP scheme).

Pedestrian priority at key junctions.

Additional Home Zone schemes (or similar principles) (e.g.

Poulton, Morecambe).

Safety audits (e.g. landscaping, lighting, surfacing etc).

DDA compliance (i.e. review station accessibility, pedestrian crossings etc).

Location specific schemes

Market Street/Church Street enhancements.

Improved east-west pedestrian links across the one-way system.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Cycling

125

Canal/sustainable transport routes – potential for tourism and leisure.

District-wide cycle hire scheme with frequent pick-up and drop-off points (e.g. Velib ‘Freedom bike’, Paris; Oy Bike, London).

Secure cycle storage – swipe card technology.

Continued funding for the Economic Development Zone (EDZ) Cycling and Walking programme.

Park & Cycle schemes for leisure and commuting, utilising existing infrastructure (linked into proposed Park & Ride sites).

Provision of high quality, visible parking facilities at strategic locations including changing rooms, shower facilities and secure parking etc.

Cycle Signage Review (including consideration to using estimated journey times on signage, route branding etc).

Provision of residential cycling facilities (e.g. external storage units/secure parking).

‘Velo Rail’ (linked to tourism).

Cycle rickshaws/’pedicab’/’velotaxi’ (e.g. Amsterdam, London).

E-Bikes (electric bicycles).

Segregated cycleways.

Cycle proficiency/training.

Greater security on existing segregated routes (e.g. pruning/ thinning of vegetation, CCTV cameras, help points, extra policing).

Improve east-west links to rural areas.

Enhance cycle links to Health Centres (e.g. hospitals/medical centres).

Marketing/promotion (e.g. direct targeting at employers, rail station, schools and City Centre car parks).

Greater Cycle route maintenance.

Location specific schemes

Cycle infrastructure on the Heysham to M6 Link Road.

Upgrade the Lancaster Canal south of Lancaster City Centre to Garstang.

Enhance pedestrian/cycle facilities in and around Lancaster City Centre, particularly east-west links (tie in to Mayer Brown proposals and one-way system modification schemes).

Enhance Pedestrian/cycle facilities in and around Morecambe’s town centre. In particular improve connection between the station, the retail core and the promenade.

Enhance links to the Port of Heysham and surrounding industrial estates.

Provision of a more direct link between Lancaster University and Lancaster City Centre.

Lune Valley Cycle route extension to Hornby, Wray and Wennington.

Further use and development of cycle network at Glasson Dock.

Better links from Lancaster Canal to Morecambe.

Provide missing links between Morecambe Promenade and Port of Heysham.

Increased cycle routes in and around Carnforth town centre and station links.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Bus

126

Accessibility Review (e.g. frequency/accessibility overlay, disabled person access).

Park & Ride (Bus based).

Morecambe.

A683 Lancaster-Morecambe Bypass/M6 Heysham Link.

Scale Hall waste tip.

Lancaster.

A683 Caton Road (M6 junction 34) – 630 space Lancashire County Council scheme.

A6 Lancaster Road (M6 junction 33) - Galgate/University.

Williamson Park.

Beaumont serving Hest Bank, Bolton-le-Sands and beyond.

Bus Priority Measures.

Review of Morecambe Road and existing bus priority.

Development of Whole Route Improvement Plans (WRIP) for Caton Road, Morecambe Road and Scotforth Road.

Lancaster City Centre ‘Metro Shuttle’ (linking rail & bus stations, interceptor car parks, tourist sites and key developments).

Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) expansion (particularly in rural areas – perhaps linking to proposed Park & Ride sites).

Consolidation and simplification of routes based upon a hierarchy including core routes, feeder services, rural scheduled routes and DRT. City Centre Bus routeing review (including consideration to core bus route through the centre of Lancaster and reprioritising sections of the one-way system in favour of buses).

Express bus services between Lancaster and other key centres (e.g. Kendal, Preston and Manchester).

Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) provision at bus stops and in new housing developments.

Reduced price/free bus-pass for children of secondary school age.

City Centre fare free zone (e.g. Calgary, Canada).

Increased evening and weekend provision.

Workplace provision review (i.e. catering for evenings, shift patterns etc).

Deregulation review (consider regaining certain powers to plan bus network/strategy).

Location specific schemes

University underpass bus facility enhancements.

Extension of bus routes in Heysham to better serve the Ferry terminal.

Improved bus provision to Carnforth.

Increased frequency/bus provision beyond Heysham to Middleton serving Lancaster West Business Park and Heysham Industrial Estate.

Greater bus penetration of White Lund Industrial Estate.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Rail

Light Rail/ Intermediate Modes

127

Upgrades to rail station facilities (parking, waiting facilities, information provision etc), particularly Bare Lane, Heysham and Morecambe.

Park & Ride (rail-based).

Carnforth (proposal to develop further); Review functionality/potential of Carnforth-Leeds Rail line possible alternative route to Clitheroe. Potential as a tourist route similar to Settle – Carlisle.

Continuation of rail service to Morecambe Promenade.

Creation of a direct chord to Heysham Port rail line which would bypass Morecambe and eliminate the turn-around time.

Signalling improvements between Bare Lane and Heysham to increase capacity.

Creation of an additional station between Morecambe and Heysham.

Creation of a new station at Lancaster University serving a Park & Ride site and used by local stopping services.

Consider reopening stations at Bolton-le-Sands or Hest Bank.

Increases in frequency on the Leeds to Carnforth line (clock faced services).

Consideration of Electrification of lines.

Increased evening and weekend provision (particularly to/from Preston, Lancaster, Manchester and Morecambe).

Carnforth Rail Chord scheme (LMV scheme - forwarded to Lancashire and Cumbria RUS).

Potential routes: Morecambe – White Lund – Salt Ayre – Lancaster City Centre (utilising former railway route) and possible new bridge).

Lancaster City Centre - University Link.

Park & Ride to City Links.

Park & Ride slip from M6 Northbound near university.

Tram-train style services from Heysham to Lancaster via Morecambe.

Light Rail network (e.g. Manchester, Sheffield).

Electric buses (e.g. Salzburg, Seattle).

Electric Trolley buses (e.g. Lyon).

Guided Busways (e.g. Nantes).

FTR Streetcar (e.g. Leeds, York).

Ultra Light Rail (e.g. Parry People Mover, West Midlands).

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Road/Traffic Management

Road Safety

Car Parking

128

Heysham/Morecambe M6 Link Road – Complementary/Mitigatory Measures.

Western Bypass (in addition to Northern Link).

Construction of new Relief Road serving Luneside area.

Lancaster City Centre One-Way System Review.

Re-introduction of two-way traffic movements (e.g. two-way A6 loop, two–way Parliament Street, two-way Lune bridges).

Partial re-introduction of two-way traffic movements.

Morecambe One-Way System Review.

Construction of a new River Lune bridge (public transport only?).

Strategic signing review (tourist).

Gateway development at key centres (i.e. Carnforth, Heysham, Lancaster, Morecambe).

Urban Traffic Management Control (UTMC) (Preston example).

Selective Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique (SCOOT) review.

Network Management (e.g. Red Route designations).

Congestion charging (linked to investment in public transport infrastructure).

City Centre Cordon Charging.

Area Based Road Pricing.

Bridge Tolls.

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.

Motorcycle utilisation of Bus Lanes.

Green Vehicle Lanes.

Location specific schemes

Morecambe Road/Carlisle Bridge bottleneck (e.g. creation of two westbound lanes).

Elongated Junction 33/Galgate Bypass.

Damside Street - Bridge height restriction limits HGV routeing options.

Morecambe Road/A6 junction – Box junction.

Owen Road – Addition of new northbound lane between Morecambe Road and Torrisholme Road).

Scale Hall – Replacement of complex signalised junction arrangement with roundabout.

Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) Analysis (continuous monitoring, addressed through Local Transport Plan).

Tackling collision ‘hot spots’ (continuous monitoring, addressed through Local Transport Plan).

Road Safety education – direct targeting of vulnerable groups.

Lancaster City Centre Parking Strategy.

Zonal Parking Strategy.

Interceptor car parks (N & S).

Morecambe parking - Clarification/reuse of land (e.g. selected removal of Promenade parking, construction of multi-storeys, underground parking).

Utilisation of Intelligent Transport Systems to guide people to parking opportunities.

Coach Parking strategy (locations & strategy).

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Freight/Servicing

Port

Waterways

Travel Planning

Highway & Land Use Planning

Other

129

Freight/servicing of the retail centre (e.g. Freight Consolidation centre and environmentally sensitive delivery vehicles).

Lancaster City Centre co-ordinated home delivery service.

Strategic signing review (freight).

Creation of a rail freight terminus at Heysham possibly relocating the passenger station nearer to the ferry port.

Review feasibility of shifting proportion of freight traffic to rail.

Facilitate transfer of road freight transport to coastal/short sea shipping and inland waterway shipping.

Promotion of waterway servicing.

Promotion of ‘Freight Bicycles’/Bicycle Couriers (e.g. London, Zurich).

Promotion of Freight on Trams / Buses - integration of uses.

Creation of a ferry port shuttle bus from Heysham town centre running either as a circular or as part of a larger route.

Align public transport services with ferry services.

Extension of Lancaster Canal to Kendal.

Lancaster Canal Waterbus extension both northwards and southwards.

River Lune integrated river frontage.

Continued funding of Personalised Travel Planning/Behavioural Research.

Promote the development of Workplace Travel Plans.

Travel Plan Review/Monitoring at following locations: Lancaster University University of Cumbria North Lancashire NHS/PCT Lancaster City Council White Lund Industrial Estate Others (City Centre retailers, new developments).

Car club/car sharing scheme (e.g. Whizz Go); School Travel Planning Review/Monitoring.

Development of a district-wide Workplace Travel Plan with coordinator Meetings to share experiences, promote best practice and develop joint initiatives (involve PT operators and highway authority).

Sustainable Towns/Eco-Town agenda.

Car-free/sustainable developments.

Parking Management/reduction of available parking spaces.

Preferential parking rates/locations for environmentally friendly vehicles (e.g. electric/hybrid/biodiesel).

Car pooling incorporated into new developments.

Location of new developments close to existing public transport links.

Hanging Monorail (e.g. Wuppertal Schwebebahn, Dortmund HBahn).

Conventional Monorail (e.g. Sydney, Seattle, Tokyo).

Miniature railways (e.g. Eskdale Valley).

Integrated Public Transport Ticketing.

Multi-Modal Public Transport System (e.g. London).

Off-vehicle public transport ticketing (e.g. London).

Bus Miles Loyalty scheme (e.g. Bus Miles, Bradford).

SMART cards (e.g. ‘Oyster’ - London).

Cable Car Link/Aerial Link Lancaster to Morecambe including over river.

Business Rate supplements for sustainable transport procedures.

Workplace parking levy.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Public Realm

Lancaster

Dalton Square enhancements.

One-Way System Junction improvements.

Public Realm Enhancements.

Brock Street.

Lucy Street.

Penny Street.

Chapel Street.

North Road.

Morecambe

Promenade improvements.

Morecambe Strategy and Masterplan.

Off-promenade route â&#x20AC;&#x201C; creation of alternative all-weather route.

Crossing point improvements.

130

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

131

Appendix B – Coarse Appraisal & Technical Note 1. Introduction This note accompanies the Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Coarse Appraisal document and provides guidance on the various assumptions and scoring systems used in appraising the stated schemes.

2. Timescale Each scheme was appraised in terms of the expected timescale of delivery. These timescales have been grouped into the following three bands:

Short Term = 0-5 years; Medium Term = 5-15 years; and Long Term = Greater than 15 years.

3. Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Objectives Each scheme was scored according to its correspondence with the set of six Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Objectives. The scoring system used for this was as follows: 1. The scheme being appraised was reviewed in terms of each objective in turn. A number of ticks or crosses were placed next to each objective for each scheme; 2. Ticks represented good correspondence between the scheme and the objective with a maximum of three ticks showing the best level of correspondence. Crosses represented negative correspondence with the objectives i.e. the scheme would actually prove detrimental to the objective being fulfilled. A maximum of three crosses represented the worst level of negative impact produced by the scheme; 3. A zero represented neither a positive nor a negative correspondence between the scheme and the objective in question; 4. The numbers of ticks and crosses (and zeros) were totalled for each scheme with each tick counting as +1 and each cross counting as -1. The total found for each scheme was then compared with the ranges below to find the scheme’s score out of 4.

<4 ticks = 1; 4-7 ticks = 2; 8-11 ticks = 3; and >11 ticks = 4.

4. NATA Objectives A similar system of ticks and crosses (and zeros) was used in calculating a score out of 4 for each scheme’s correspondence with general NATA Objectives. In determining the number of ticks or crosses to ascribe to each scheme in relation to each objective, the following questions were asked as guidance:

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

132

Table B.1 - Coarse Appraisal Guidance

Category Environment

Sub-Objective Air Quality

Landscape/Townscape Physical Fitness Journey Ambience Safety

Accidents Security

Economic

Reliability

Wider Economic Impacts

Accessibility

Severance

Integration

Access to Transport System Transport interchange

Land-use Policy

Qualitative Impacts 1. Does the scheme impact on air quality (emission of greenhouse gases)?

2. How does the scheme differ from the status quo?

1. Does the scheme enhance/complement the existing landscape/townscape?

1. Will the scheme encourage increased levels of activity (i.e. walking and cycling)?

1. Does the scheme enhance the journey to work/leisure route?

1. Will the scheme directly/indirectly reduce road traffic incidents?

1. Is the scheme likely to benefit personal safety?

1. Will the scheme provide a reliable journey time?

2. Will the scheme contribute to reduced levels of congestion, thereby benefiting other modes?

1. Will the scheme open up new areas of development?

2. Does the scheme enhance accessibility to existing/proposed employment sites?

3. Does the scheme have the potential to become a tourist feature in its own right?

1. Is the scheme designed to reduce severance at key locations?

2. Will the scheme create new lines of severance that may need to addressed in the future?

1. Does the scheme facilitate access to the Public Transport network?

1. Does the scheme facilitate integration between sustainable modes of transport (e.g. rail, bus, cycle, pedestrian)?

1. Does the scheme complement existing land use policy?

Following the ascribing of ticks and crosses up to a maximum of three for each objective, the total number of ticks (again counting ticks as +1 and crosses as -1) were evaluated and compared to the ranges set out below to determine the schemeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s score out of four:

<7 ticks = 1; 7-12 ticks = 2; 13-19 ticks = 3; and >19 ticks = 4.

5. Deliverability Schemes were then assessed for deliverability using the four sub-categories of Acceptability, Constraints, Policy Fit, and Ongoing Viability. For each of these, a tick, a cross, or a zero was noted for each scheme. A tick indicated a positive impact, a cross indicated a negative, and a zero indicated no significant impact on deliverability. A score out of 4 was again determined for each scheme by totalling the number of ticks and crosses with ticks counting as +1, and crosses counting as -1 as before.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

133

6. Cost The estimated cost of each scheme was then similarly scored out of 4 using the price ranges noted below:

£0-£200,000 = 4; £200,000 - £1m = 3; £1m – £5m = 2; >£5m = 1.

7. Impact The final component of the appraisal was the predicted total impact of each scheme on the Lancaster and Morecambe Transport system. This quantity was also ascribed a score out of 4 using the more qualitative definitions of ‘Low Impact’ (1 point), ‘Medium Impact’ (2 points), ‘High Impact’ (3 points), and ‘Very High Impact’ (4 points).

8. Decision on whether to proceed As a final step, the decision on whether to progress each scheme to a short list of schemes was made based upon the total score out of 20 ascribed to each. As a realistic cut-off point, a score of 13 out of 20 was chosen to represent the minimum required for a scheme to proceed based upon this analysis. The final column in the table states whether each scheme should progress or not based upon this appraisal system.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

134

Appendix C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; City Centre TRIPS Model Analysis Select Link Analysis Table: C.1: Skerton Bridge

Area Summary Lancaster University Morecambe: Central & West (inc Heysham) Morecambe: East White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster City South of Region (Fylde Coast) South of Region (Preston & South) South of Lancaster (Galgate - Garstang) Morecambe: North (Hest Bank, Carnforth) North of Region, (N of Carnforth) Lancaster: north (Lancaster - M6 J34) East of Lancaster (Quernmore) North of River Lune (Skerton, Scale Hall)

Trips From Trips % 0 0% 645 41% 269 17% 210 14% 20 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 112 7% 14 1% 0 0% 0 0% 286 18%

Trips To Trips % 315 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1,080 69% 18 1% 5 0% 63 4% 0 0% 7 0% 25 2% 42 3% 0 0%

Trips From Trips % 29 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 771 87% 6 1% 0 0% 57 6% 0 0% 0 0% 8 1% 19 2% 0 0%

Trips To Trips % 0 0% 297 33% 134 15% 272 31% 1 0% 6 1% 3 0% 0 0% 41 5% 58 7% 15 2% 0 0% 65 7%

Trips From Trips % 44 3% 92 7% 41 3% 55 4% 609 46% 119 9% 34 3% 104 8%

Trips To Trips % 0 0% 142 11% 68 5% 151 12% 847 64% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Table: C.2: Greyhound Bridge

Area Summary Lancaster University Morecambe: Central & West (inc Heysham) Morecambe: East White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster City South of Region (Fylde Coast) South of Region (Preston & South) South of Lancaster (Galgate - Garstang) Morecambe: North (Hest Bank, Carnforth) north of Region, (N of Carnforth) Lancaster: north (Lancaster - M6 J34) East of Lancaster (Quernmore) North of R Lune (Skerton, Scale Hall) Table: C.3: King Street

Area Summary Lancaster University Morecambe: Central & West (inc Heysham) Morecambe: East White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster City South of Region (Fylde Coast) South of Region (Preston & South) South of Lancaster (Galgate - Garstang)

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

135

Morecambe: North (Hest Bank, Carnforth) North of Region, (N of Carnforth) Lancaster: north (Lancaster - M6 J34) East of Lancaster (Quernmore) North of River Lune (Skerton, Scale Hall)

19 120 31 19 28

1% 9% 2% 1% 2%

22 30 17 0 37

2% 2% 1% 0% 3%

Table: C.4: Thurnham Street

Area Summary Lancaster University Morecambe: Central & West (inc Heysham) Morecambe: East White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster City South of Region (Fylde Coast) South of Region (Preston & South) South of Lancaster (Galgate - Garstang) Morecambe: North (Hest Bank, Carnforth) north of Region, (N of Carnforth) Lancaster: north (Lancaster - M6 J34) East of Lancaster (Quernmore) North of R Lune (Skerton, Scale Hall)

Trips From Trips % 0 0% 350 27% 148 11% 120 9% 125 10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 91 7% 221 17% 73 6% 0 0% 157 12%

Trips To Trips % 278 22% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 875 68% 36 3% 7 1% 86 7% 0 0% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Origin & Destination Pairs Table C.5: Skerton Bridge

Origin White Lund Industrial Estate Skerton/Barley Cop Lane Heysham: Village Morecambe: Sandylands Morecambe: Westgate White Lund Industrial Estate Torrisholme Road/Morecambe Road Lansil Industrial Estate Morecambe: Stuart Ave White Lund Industrial Estate

Destination Lancaster: The Greaves Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster: Marsh Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster: St. Georges Quay

No. 36 35 33 29 29 22 22 21 20 20

Table C.6: Greyhound Bridge: Origin-Destination Pairs

Origin Lancaster: The Greaves Lancaster: Marsh Lancaster: Bowerham Lancaster: Scotforth Lancaster: St Georges Quay Lancaster: Abraham Heights Lancaster: Regent St Lancaster: Derwent Rd Lancaster: Aldcliffe Rd Lancaster: Regent St

Destination White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate North/M6 Junction 36 Morecambe: Central White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate

No. 54 47 21 19 15 15 15 15 14 13

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

136

Table C.7: King Street - Origin-Destination Pairs

Origin Lancaster: The Greaves North/M6 Junction 36 Lancaster: The Greaves White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster: The Greaves Lancaster: Scotforth North/ M6 Junction 36 Lancaster: Bowerham Lancaster: Scotforth

Destination White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster: St Georges Quay Lancaster: St Georges Quay Lancaster: Marsh Lancaster: St Georges Quay Lancaster: Marsh White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster: Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate Lancaster: St Georges Quay

No. 54 37 25 22 20 19 19 19 17 15

Table C.8: Thurnham Street â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Origin-Destination Pairs

Origin North/ M6 Junction 36 Skerton/Barley Cop Lane Heysham: Village Morecambe: Sandylands Morecambe: Westgate White Lund Industrial Estate White Lund Industrial Estate Bolton Le Sands Torrisholme Rd/Morecambe Rd Lansil Industrial Estate

Destination Lancaster: St Georges Quay Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster: The Greaves Lancaster: Marsh Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster University

No. 30 29 27 23 23 22 20 19 18 17

Appraisal of Modification Options Option A Scheme Description

Modelling Assumptions

Option A involves changes to the Lune and Kingsway gyratories, including converting the River Lune bridges to two-way flow and converting Kingsway/Parliament Street/Caton Road to two-way flows. No changes to the City Centre one-way system were modelled in this option.

Modelling Results

Capacity on Kingsway reduced from 2,631 to 1,754 to account for two-way flow.

Speed on Greyhound Bridge reduced from 64kph to 49kph, capacity reduced from 3,783 to 2,631.

Caton Road (between Bulk Road and Kingsway) converted to two-way.

Skerton Bridge converted to two-way flow.

Morecambe Road (between Greyhound Bridge and Skerton Bridge) converted to two-way flows.

Trips using Greyhound Bridge are from/to A683 Morecambe Road.

Skerton Bridge is mainly used by trips heading from/to A6 Owen Road and not trips using A683 Morecambe Road.

A683 Morecambe Rd (between Greyhound Bridge and Skerton Bridge), used by local trips and a handful of trips to/from Morecambe Road.

Extremely low flows northbound on Caton Road (between Bulk Road and Kingsway).

Significant reduction in northbound flows on Kingsway (between Skerton Bridge and Caton Road). This is due to the removal of the Kingsway oneway system, trips travelling southbound over the bridges into the city will make a right-turn after crossing the Lune instead of using Kingsway/Caton Road.

Minimal effect on the City Centre one-way system, some local variations between minor routes within the city.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option B Scheme Description

Modelling Assumptions

This option proposes significant changes routeing in the City Centre, in particular converting the current City Centre gyratory system into two-way flow, allowing two-way flow on Skerton Bridge, which will allow for improved bus priority to/from Morecambe and Halton via Greyhound Bridge.

Modelling Results

137

The introduction of bus lanes on Greyhound Bridge, will reduce traffic speeds similar to Skerton Bridge, an assumption of speeds would be reduced from 64kph to 37kph capacity reduced from 3,783 to 2,631.

No capacity constraints have been applied to the Lune Crossings.

City Centre one-way system converted to allow two-way flows, link speeds remains unchanged.

For City Centre options see Option H, a similar trend in results occurs.

Only a small number of trips transfer to Skerton Bridge, the majority of these are trips that continue along the A6 north of Lancaster. Flows on Greyhound Bridge reduce because of the new northbound flow on Skerton Bridge. This suggests no wider redistribution of trips as a result of the option.

Slight redistribution of trips around the City Centre, this is mainly attributed to changes to the City Centre one-way system.

Option C Not modelled.

Option D Scheme Description

Modelling Assumptions

This option involves converting Skerton Bridge and Morecambe Road to twoway flow with a bus contraflow on Greyhound Bridge. The City Centre gyratory was reverted to two-way flow, with general traffic permitted on King Street, Thurnham Street and North Road, with the exception of a contraflow bus lane on Cable Street between North Road and Meeting House Lane.

Modelling Results

Option E Not modelled.

Changes to the junction of Cable Street and North Road (to permit a contraflow bus lane on Cable Street and two-way flow on North Road).

A reduction in speed was assumed on Greyhound Bridge to account for the contraflow bus lane, speeds were reduced from 64kph to 49kph, capacity reduced from 3,783 to 2,631.

A contraflow bus lane was created on Kingsway, speeds were assessed (no change in modelling was undertaken for this bus lane, capacity reduced from 2,631 to 1,754).

The effects on the Lune one-way system are similar to Option B, in that trips using the Skerton Bridge in the northbound direction are heading towards A6 Owen Road and not A683 Morecambe Road.

The changes to the City Centre one-way system have resulted in changes in the routeings of general traffic around the City Centre.

- Northbound flows on King Street are reduced due to increase in northbound flows on Thurnham Street, these flows are reasonably matched by route. With around 600 northbound trips on Thurnham Street.

- Southbound trips are much lower on King Street than Thurnham Street, this is because King Street does not allow through movements for general traffic in the southbound direction.

- Significant increase in eastbound flows on Meeting House Lane. This is due to the improved accessibility offered by reverting the one-way system to two-way flow.

- Eastbound increases in flows on Meeting House Lane are offset by reductions in St. Georges Quay and Aldcliffe Road.

- Variations in flows on the east of the one-way system with local variation. This is likely to be due to the improved accessibility two-way flows on Thurnham Street offer.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option F Scheme Description Modelling Assumptions

This radical option, involves the conversion of all sections of the gyratory to two-way flows.

Modelling Results

Option G Scheme Description Modelling Assumptions

Modelling Results

138

Capacity on Kingsway reduced from 2,631 to 1,754 to account for two way flow.

Greyhound Bridge speeds reduced from 64kph to 49kph, capacity reduced from 2,631 to 1,754.

As per Option G, though with modifications to the below.

- Caton Road/Bulk Road/Kingsway junction – will require redesigning to account for two-way flows on Caton Road.

- Morecambe Road/Greyhound Bridge junction – will require changes to the junction to account for two-way flow on Greyhound Bridge.

- No routeing restrictions applied (no signing strategies, no restricted movements).

Slight increase in trips using the bridges (not significant).

Significant reduction in trips using Caton Road (79% reduction), very few northbound trips on this route.

Greyhound Bridge – primarily used by trips to A683 Morecambe Road (10% reduction in northbound flows).

Skerton Bridge – primarily used by trips between Lancaster and A6 Owen Road.

Extremely low usage of A683 Morecambe Road (between Greyhound Bridge and Skerton Bridge), mainly used for local trips (no right turning traffic from Greyhound Bridge).

Significant reduction in the number of trips on Kingsway northbound.

For City Centre changes (see Option H).

This option involves the conversion of the main gyratory to two-way flows and introducing two-way flows on Skerton Bridge. All other flows will remain unaffected, with the exception of a bus contraflow on Greyhound Bridge.

Redesign of the junction of Caton Road/Bulk Road/Kingsway, this was to include two-way flow on Kingsway.

Greyhound Bridge – reduced speed to account for the introduction of a contraflow bus lane, capacity reduced from 3,783 to 2,631.

Traffic from Greyhound Bridge to Morecambe Road (westbound) will be able to merge into Morecambe Road when leaving Greyhound Bridge.

The right turning movement from Greyhound Bridge into Morecambe Road will remain.

No new capacity constraints have been included on either of the River Lune crossings.

It is likely that a number of restricted movements and signing strategies may be implemented for the different bridges. This has not been modelled.

No significant changes in flows on Morecambe Road.

Increased flow on Owen Road (A6) north of Skerton Bridge.

Skerton Bridge provides northbound access to A6 north of Lancaster, there are few trips heading to Morecambe Road on Skerton Bridge (approx 20 – 30).

Greyhound Bridge – provides northbound access to Morecambe Road westbound only. Only 2 trips use the right turn into Morecambe Road from Greyhound Bridge.

City Centre Changes – for general trend see Option H

Two-way Kingsway and Parliament Street provide improved access to/from Skerton Bridge. The majority of trips from the north still remain on Caton Road. Trips travelling southbound on Skerton Bridge turn right into Parliament Street, this is marked by a 50% reduction in trips on Caton Road.

Caton Road southbound section (Kingsway between Parliament Street)

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Option H Scheme Description Modelling Assumptions

Option I Scheme Description

Modelling

reduction in trips due to changed routeings: - Trips to A6 Owen Road from A683 Caton Road – can now use Kingsway and Skerton Bridge to reach the A6 instead of using the oneway system via Greyhound Bridge.

- Southbound trips on Skerton Bridge to the City Centre can make a right-turn into Parliament Street, this reduces the number of trips on Caton Road.

- Access to Bulk Road is now greater from the south at Parliament Street. Access from Bulk Road is greater at the north on Caton Road/Kingsway.

The reduction of speed as a result of introducing a contraflow bus lane on Greyhound Bridge has not had a significant impact on the distribution of flows.

Option H involves the conversion of the main gyratory to two-way flows. All other sections remain unaltered.

Modelling Results

139

Modifications to the junction of Cable Street/North Road to accommodate two way traffic on Cable Street and North Street.

Capacity constraints and link speeds were assessed.

One way streets within the existing city centre gyratory (Meeting House Lane, Common Garden Street) will remain unchanged.

Distribution of flows between major routes.

Major changes in the numbers using routes from/to A6 through the City Centre.

Significant eastbound increases in flows on George Street and Nelson Street, possibly due to improved accessibility via northbound Thurnham Street, matched by reduction in the westbound direction (towards the oneway system), suggesting new improved routes from this area of the City Centre.

Increased flows westbound on St. Georges Quay, decreases in eastbound flows (towards the one-way system).

The City Centre one-way system - 50-60% reduction in northbound flows on King Street, around 400 – 500 new southbound trips.

- 40–50% reduction in southbound flows on Thurnham Street, around 500 – 600 new northbound trips.

Use of Bulk Road increases in the eastbound direction, decreases to the west, impacts on Parliament Street northbound.

High flow locations on the route: - North Road (Moor Lane to Church Street) 681 northbound, 797 southbound.

- King Street (Common Garden Street to Meeting House Lane) 411 northbound, 695 southbound).

- Thurnham Street (South Road to George Street) 570 northbound, 695 southbound.

- Cable Street (North Road to St. Georges Quay) 518 northbound, 673 southbound.

Wider area – slight changes in flows on the edge of the City Centre, these are only slight, with a 4% increase in trips northbound on South Road, 11% reduction in trips on A683 Caton Road leaving the City, minimal change on the River Lune bridges.

This option involves retaining the eastern section of the main gyratory and the Lune gyratory as existing. Kingsway will be altered to provide a bus contraflow. In addition, the north west section of the main gyratory will be converted to two-way flow.

Modifications to the junction of Cable Street/North Road to accommodate two way traffic on Cable Street and North Street.

Faber Maunsell

Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

Assumptions

Modelling Results

Option I Not modelled.

Option J Not modelled.

140

Capacity constraints and link speeds were assessed.

One way streets within the existing city centre gyratory (Meeting House Lane, Common Garden Street) will remain unchanged.

Cable Street – direct access to St. Georges Quay and Meeting House Lane from north King Street – northbound 40% reduction in flow between Common Garden Street and Meeting House Lane. This represents the redistribution of trips onto Cable Street. At present trips from the north of the City Centre to Meeting House Lane and St. Georges Quay area have to use the City Centre one-way system to access these areas, the introduction of two-way Cable Street eliminates this.

North Street – 35% reduction in trips, directly relating to converting Cable Street to two-way flow.

Transfer of a small number of trips onto Bulk (northbound only) the reduction in the number of northbound lanes results in a small number of trips diverting via Bulk Road.

Capacity issues: Can the reduction in northbound capacity still cope with the required northbound A6 demand?

RIVER LUNE

DM

NB 739

SB 906

NB 71

DM

(A6: Owen Rd)

SB 596

(A683: Caton Rd) NB DM 1926

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

DM

NB SB 669 559

DM

NB SB 239 522

DM

NB 431

SB DM 1509

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE DM

SB DM 1532

NB 807

(Parliament St)

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) DM

NB 252

SB 252

(St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd) DM

(Cable St)

WB EB 215 122

NB SB 437 1400

DM NB DM 1204

SB DM 1581 DM

EB 462

WB 478

DM

WB EB 2 219

(Moor Lane)

(King St)

SB DM 1385

(Meetinh House Lane) (Thurnham St) DM

WB EB 31 180

NB DM 1220

(King St)

DM

NB 106

(Nelson St)

SB 31

(Queen St)

DM

DM

DM

WB 207

NB

SB

EB 54

(George St)

NB 767

SB DM 1152

NB SB 251 154

(Aldcliffe Rd)

(A6: South Rd)

Baseline (Heysham - M6 Link) Test Options

DM DS

DM

NB SB 860 986

Direction of Travel

Diff

Key Traffic flows reduced by more than 10% Traffic Flows increased by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone Main A Roads Minor Roads (inc B roads)

Description of Scheme option:

BASELINE SCENARIO

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

River Lune

Client:

Scale

Title: Lancashire County Council

Project: Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy

N.T.S

LINK FLOWS: BASELINE (Includes Heysham - M6 Link Rd)

Lynnfield House, Church Street Altrincham, WA14 4DZ

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200 Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

Date: 29/01/2008

RIVER LUNE

DM DS %

NB 739 730 -1%

SB 906 964 6%

NB DM 71 DS 82 % 15%

(A6: Owen Rd)

SB 596 622 4%

(A683: Caton Rd)

NB SB DM 1926 DS 480 107 % -75%

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

DM DS %

NB 669 685 2%

SB 559 677 21%

DM DS %

NB 239 237 -1%

SB 522 374 -28%

NB 431 441 2%

SB

DM DS %

WB 31 45 45%

EB 180 202 12%

NB SB 1509 DM DS 116 562 -63% %

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE

NB NB SB DM 807 DS 724 1004 % ####

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

48

SB 1532 276 -82%

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) DM DS %

EB 252 256 2%

WB 252 262 4%

(St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd)

(Cable St) DM DS %

NB DM 1204 DS 1196 -1% %

DM DS %

EB 462 462 0%

DM DS %

NB SB 1026 1400 1059 1498 3% 7%

SB DM 1581 DS 1643 4% % (Moor Lane)

WB 478 465 -3%

DM DS %

(King St)

(Thurnham St)

DM DS %

NB DM 1220 DS 1199 -2% % SB 31 32 3%

(King St)

(Nelson St)

DM DS %

(Queen St)

SB 154 155 1%

WB EB 207 54 151 41 -27% -24%

(George St)

NB DM 767 DS 743 % -3% NB DM 251 DS 226 % -10%

WB EB 2 219 11 174 450% -21%

SB DM 1385 DS 1457 5% %

(Meetinh House Lane)

NB DM 106 DS 127 % 20%

WB EB 215 122 238 345 11% 183%

SB DM 1152 DS 1165 % 1%

NB (Aldcliffe Rd)

(A6: South Rd)

Key

%

-2%

SB 986 1001

Direction of Travel

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

DS NB DM 860 DS 841

SB

Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

Diff

2% Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone Main A Roads

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10% Description of Scheme option:

Minor Roads (inc B roads)

River Lune Client:

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

2 way flows Scheme Title:

Scale

Lancashire County Council Project: Lancaster District Transport Vison & Strategy

N.T.S

OPTION A

Lynnfield House, Church Street Altrincham, WA14 4DZ

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200 Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

Date: 29/01/2008

500

WB DM DS %

NB 739 742 0%

SB 906 880 -3%

DM DS %

2

EB 982 880 -10%

(A6: Owen Rd)

DM DS %

NB 71 76 7%

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

SB 596 602 1%

NB DM DS %

81

RIVER LUNE

(A683: Caton Rd)

NB DM 1926 DS 1749 -9% %

DM DS %

NB 669 593 -11%

SB 559 576 3%

DM DS %

NB 239 316 32%

SB 522 550 5%

DM DS %

NB 431 354 -18%

WB 31 35 13%

EB 180 231 28%

SB 1509 1489 -1%

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE DM DS %

NB 807 735 -9%

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

SB 1532 1498 -2%

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) EB DM 252 DS 176 % -30%

WB 252 113 -55%

(St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd)

(Cable St) NB DM 1204 DS 416 % -65%

DM DS %

SB

NB SB 1026 1400 984 1326 -4% -5%

EB 462 607 31%

WB 478 435 -9%

DM DS % (Moor Lane)

532

SB 1581 687 -57%

DM DS %

(King St)

NB DM DS %

(Meetinh House Lane) (Thurnham St)

DM DS %

DM DS %

NB 1220 411 -66%

EB 122 211 73%

501

WB EB 2 219 169 143 8350% -35%

SB 1385 659 -52% DM DS %

SB

603

NB SB 106 31 118 53 11% 71%

(King St)

(Nelson St)

(Queen St)

NB SB DM 251 154 94 105 DS % -63% -32%

DM DS %

WB 207 176 -15%

NB

SB

EB 54 113 109%

(George St)

NB SB DM 767 DS 329 434 % -57%

NB DM DS %

(Aldcliffe Rd)

569

SB 1152 694 -40%

(A6: South Rd)

Key

DM DS

NB 860 895

SB 986 990

%

4%

0%

Direction of Travel Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

DS Diff

Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10%

Main A Roads Minor Roads (inc B roads)

Description of Scheme option:

River Lune

2 way flows Scheme -

Client:

WB 215 158 -27%

435 NB

DM DS %

DM DS %

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

Title:

Scale

Lancashire County Council Project: Lancaster District Transport Vision & Strategy

N.T.S

OPTION B

Lynnfield House, Church Street Altrincham, WA14 4DZ

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200 Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

Date: 29/01/2008

WB DM DS %

NB 739 746 1%

SB 906 885 -2%

DM DS %

2

EB 982 885 -10%

(A6: Owen Rd)

DM DS %

NB 71 76 7%

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

SB 596 598 0%

NB DM DS %

82

RIVER LUNE

(A683: Caton Rd)

NB DM 1926 DS 1849 -4% %

DM DS %

NB 669 600 -10%

SB 559 577 3%

DM DS %

NB 239 225 -6%

SB 522 545 4%

DM DS %

NB 431 453 5%

WB 31 69 123%

EB 180 204 13%

SB 1509 1492 -1%

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE DM DS %

NB 807 739 -8%

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

SB 1532 1505 -2%

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) EB DM 252 DS 221 % -12%

WB 252 120 -52%

(St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd)

(Cable St)

DM DS %

DM DS %

NB 1204 633 -47%

NB SB 1026 1400 630 1370 -39% -2%

NB DM DS %

EB 462 623 35%

WB 478 465 -3%

DM DS %

DM DS % (Moor Lane)

635

SB 1581 1477 -7%

(King St)

NB DM DS %

(Meetinh House Lane) (Thurnham St)

DM DS %

DM DS %

NB 106 109 3%

NB 1220 828 -32%

DM DS %

WB 2 141 6950%

352

(King St)

SB 1385 1345 -3%

(Nelson St)

DM DS %

WB 207 221 7%

NB

SB

EB 54 120 122%

(George St)

NB SB DM 767 DS 386 329 % -50% SB 154 143 -7%

NB DM DS %

(Aldcliffe Rd)

624

SB 1152 905 -21%

(A6: South Rd)

Key

DM DS

NB 860 946

SB 986 1018

%

10%

3%

Direction of Travel Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

DS Diff

Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10%

Main A Roads Minor Roads (inc B roads)

Description of Scheme option:

River Lune

2 Way flows Scheme -

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

Title:

Scale

Lancashire County Council Project: Lancaster District Transport Vision & Strategy

EB 219 208 -5%

DM DS %

(Queen St)

Client:

EB 122 107 -12%

SB

SB 31 33 6%

NB DM 251 DS 101 % -60%

592

WB 215 36 -83%

N.T.S

OPTION D

Lynnfield House, Church Street Altrincham, WA14 4DZ

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200 Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

Date: 29/01/2008

WB DM DS %

NB 739 729 -1%

SB 906 856 -6%

DM DS %

58

EB 982 30 -97%

(A6: Owen Rd)

DM DS %

NB SB 71 596 83 676 17% 13%

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

NB DM DS %

116

RIVER LUNE

NB SB DM 1926 DS 433 107 % -78%

(A683: Caton Rd)

DM DS %

NB 669 612 -9%

SB 559 664 19%

DM DS %

NB 239 287 20%

SB 522 361 -31%

NB 431 356 -17%

SB

DM DS %

WB 31 55 77%

EB 180 251 39%

SB 1509 671 -56%

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE

NB DM 807 DS 723 % -10%

SB

NB

874

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

21

SB 1532 325 -79%

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) EB WB DM 252 252 DS 149 132 % -41% -48% (St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd)

(Cable St) NB DM 1204 DS 418 % -65%

DM DS %

SB

NB SB 1026 1400 993 1507 -3% 8%

EB WB 462 478 611 425 32% -11%

DM DS % (Moor Lane)

522

SB 1581 807 -49%

DM DS %

(King St)

NB DM DS %

(Meetinh House Lane) (Thurnham St)

DM DS %

DM DS %

NB 1220 404 -67%

EB 122 311 155%

503

WB EB 2 219 143 140 7050% -36%

SB 1385 725 -48% DM DS %

SB 618

NB SB 106 31 116 63 9% 103%

(King St)

(Nelson St)

(Queen St)

DM DS % NB SB DM 251 154 DS 93 94 % -63% -39%

NB SB 767 313 474 -59%

(Aldcliffe Rd)

DM DS %

WB 207 149 -28%

NB

SB

Key

EB 54 132 144%

(George St) NB DM DS %

573

SB 1152 673 -42%

(A6: South Rd)

DM DS

NB 860 886

SB 986 1019

%

3%

3%

Direction of Travel Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

DS Diff

Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10%

Main A Roads Minor Roads (inc B roads)

Description of Scheme option:

River Lune

2 way City Centre Gyratory Scheme -

Client:

WB 215 169 -21%

445 NB

DM DS %

DM DS %

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

Title:

Scale

Lancashire County Council Project: Lancaster District Transport Vision & Strategy

N.T.S

OPTION F

Lynnfield House,

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200

Church Street Altrincham,

Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

WA14 4DZ

Date: 29/01/2008

572

WB DM DS %

NB 739 731 -1%

SB 906 902 0%

DM DS %

25

EB 982 902 -8%

(A6: Owen Rd)

DM DS %

NB 71 83 17%

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

SB 596 608 2%

NB DM DS %

114

RIVER LUNE

NB SB DM 1926 DS 997 136 % -48%

(A683: Caton Rd)

DM DS %

NB 669 607 -9%

SB 559 631 13%

DM DS %

NB 239 296 24%

SB 522 436 -16%

NB 431 388 -10%

SB

DM DS %

WB 31 27 -13%

EB 180 232 29%

SB 1509 1520 1%

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE DM DS %

NB 807 724 -10%

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

SB 1532 745 -51%

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) EB WB DM 252 252 DS 140 106 % -44% -58% (St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd)

(Cable St) NB DM 1204 DS 415 % -66%

DM DS %

SB

NB SB 1026 1400 991 1421 -3% 2%

EB WB 462 478 609 427 32% -11%

DM DS % (Moor Lane)

527

SB 1581 753 -52%

DM DS %

(King St)

NB DM DS %

(Meetinh House Lane) (Thurnham St)

DM DS %

DM DS %

NB 1220 407 -67%

EB 122 262 115%

499

WB EB 2 219 151 117 7450% -47%

SB 1385 702 -49% DM DS %

SB 614

NB SB 106 31 115 64 8% 106%

(King St)

(Nelson St)

(Queen St)

DM DS % NB SB DM 251 154 DS 94 93 % -63% -40%

NB SB 767 325 467 -58%

(Aldcliffe Rd)

DM DS %

WB 207 140 -32%

NB

SB

Key

NB DM DS %

567

SB 1152 663 -42%

(A6: South Rd)

DM DS

NB 860 890

SB 986 1005

%

3%

2%

Direction of Travel Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

Diff

Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone Main A Roads Minor Roads (inc B roads)

EB 54 106 96%

(George St)

DS

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10% Description of Scheme option:

2 way City Centre Gyratory 2 Way Skerton Bridge & Morecambe Rd Contra flow bus lanes Scheme -

River Lune Client:

WB 215 153 -29%

440 NB

DM DS %

DM DS %

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

Title:

Scale

Lancashire County Council Project: Lancaster District Transport Vision & Strategy

N.T.S

OPTION G

Lynnfield House,

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200

Church Street Altrincham,

Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

WA14 4DZ

Date: 29/01/2008

911

RIVER LUNE

DM DS %

NB 739 743 1%

SB 906 880 -3%

NB 71 73 3%

DM DS %

(A6: Owen Rd)

SB 596 605 2%

(A683: Caton Rd)

NB DM 1926 DS 1770 -8% %

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

DM DS %

NB 669 598 -11%

SB 559 575 3%

DM DS %

NB 239 302 26%

SB 522 552 6%

DM DS %

NB 431 293 -32%

WB 31 25 -19%

EB 180 230 28%

SB DM 1509 DS 1491 % -1%

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE DM DS %

NB 807 813 1%

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

SB 1532 1497 -2%

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) EB DM 252 DS 185 % -27%

WB 252 114 -55%

(St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd)

(Cable St) NB DM 1204 DS 416 % -65%

DM DS %

SB

NB SB 1026 1400 1001 1328 -2% -5%

EB 462 607 31%

WB 215 159 -26%

EB 122 211 73%

435 NB

DM DS %

DM DS %

WB 478 436 -9%

DM DS % (Moor Lane)

546

SB 1581 687 -57%

DM DS %

(King St)

NB DM DS %

(Meetinh House Lane) (Thurnham St)

DM DS %

SB 1385 660 -52% DM DS %

NB SB 1220 411 601 -66%

(King St)

NB SB DM 106 31 DS 118 52 % 11% 68%

(Nelson St)

(Queen St)

DM DS %

WB 207 185 -11%

NB

SB

NB DM DS %

(Aldcliffe Rd)

570

SB 1152 695 -40%

(A6: South Rd)

Key

DM DS

NB 860 896

SB 986 990

%

4%

0%

Direction of Travel Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

DS Diff

Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone Main A Roads Minor Roads (inc B roads)

EB 54 114 111%

(George St)

NB SB DM 767 DS 329 432 % -57% NB SB DM 251 154 94 105 DS % -63% -32%

502

WB EB 2 219 169 143 8350% -35%

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10% Description of Scheme option:

2 way City Centre Gyratory AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

River Lune Scheme Client:

Title:

Scale

Lancashire County Council Project: Lancaster District Transport Vision & Strategy

N.T.S

OPTION H

Lynnfield House, Church Street Altrincham, WA14 4DZ

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200 Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

Date: 29/01/2008

RIVER LUNE

DM DS %

NB 739 736 0%

SB 906 883 -3%

DM DS %

NB 71 71 0%

(A6: Owen Rd)

SB 596 618 4%

(A683: Caton Rd)

NB DM 1926 DS 1826 -5% %

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

DM DS %

NB 669 638 -5%

SB 559 586 5%

DM DS %

NB 239 308 29%

SB 522 531 2%

DM DS %

NB 431 332 -23%

WB 31 19 -39%

EB 180 265 47%

SB DM 1509 DS 1508 0% %

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE DM DS %

NB 807 803 0%

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

SB 1532 1550 1%

(Greyhound Bridge) (Caton Rd) EB DM 252 DS 112 % -56%

WB 252 109 -57%

(St Georges Quay)

(Bulk Rd)

(Cable St) DM DS %

NB SB DM 1204 DS 803 202 % -33% EB DM 462 DS 352 % -24%

DM DS %

NB SB 1026 1400 827 1429 -19% 2%

SB DM 1581 DS 1019 -36% % (Moor Lane)

WB 478 441 -8%

(King St)

EB 122 176 44%

DM DS %

WB EB 2 219 1 149 -50% -32%

SB DM 1385 DS 1031 % -26%

(Meetinh House Lane) (Thurnham St)

DM DS %

NB DM 1220 DS 690 % -43%

(King St)

NB SB DM 106 31 DS 168 28 % 58% -10%

(Nelson St)

DM DS %

(Queen St) NB DM 767 DS 713 % -7%

DM DS %

WB 215 377 75%

NB SB 251 154 268 128 7% -17%

(George St) SB DM 1152 DS 1152 % 0%

NB (Aldcliffe Rd)

DM DS

NB 860 797

SB 986 1003

%

-7%

2%

SB

Direction of Travel Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

(A6: South Rd)

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

DS

Key

WB EB 207 54 112 109 -46% 102%

Diff

Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone Main A Roads

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10% Description of Scheme option:

Minor Roads (inc B roads) 2 way Cable St between North Rd and Meeting House Lane Scheme -

River Lune Client:

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

Scale

Title: Lancashire County Council

Project: Lancaster District Transport Vision & Strategy

N.T.S

OPTION I

Lynnfield House, Church Street Altrincham, WA14 4DZ

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200 Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

Date: 29/01/2008

RIVER LUNE

DM DS %

NB 739 740 0%

SB 906 884 -2%

DM DS %

NB 71 71 0%

(A6: Owen Rd)

SB 596 611 3%

(A683: Caton Rd)

NB DM 1926 DS 1920 0% %

(A683: Morecambe Rd)

DM DS %

NB 669 672 0%

SB 559 553 -1%

DM DS %

NB 239 239 0%

SB 522 538 3%

DM DS %

NB 110 115 5%

SB 195 192 -2%

DM DS %

WB 78 80 3%

EB 45 44 -2%

SB DM 1509 DS 1502 0% %

(Skerton Bridge)

RIVER LUNE DM DS %

DM DS %

NB 807 808 0%

NB DM 431 DS 433 0% % (Greyhound Bridge)

EB WB 252 252 239 180 -5% -29%

DM DS % EB 462 463 0%

NB 1204 1230 2%

DM DS %

SB DM 1581 DS 1574 0% %

DM DS %

NB 267 244 -9%

SB 175 176 1%

DM DS %

WB 2 2 0%

EB 219 237 8%

WB EB 215 122 198 104 -8% -15%

(Ulswater Rd)

(Brewery Rd)

WB 478 486 2%

(Moor Lane) SB DM 1385 DS 1367 -1% %

(King St) EB DM 84 DS 41 % -51%

(Meetinh House Lane)

DM DS %

DM DS %

SB 1532 1502 -2%

(Bulk Rd) NB SB DM 1026 1400 DS #N/A 1388 % #N/A -1% (Cable St)

(St Georges Quay)

DM DS %

DM DS %

(Parliament St)

NB 106 105 -1%

NB 1220 1252 3%

(Thurnham St)

(King St) DM

SB 31 29 -6%

WB 31

(Nelson St)

EB 180

( Wyresdale Rd)

(George St) Quarry Rd) (Queen St) NB DM 767 DS 757 % -1%

DM DS %

NB 251 250 0%

SB 154 147 -5%

(Aldcliffe Rd)

SB DM 1152 DS 1148 0% %

DM DS %

WB 207 239 15%

EB 54 180 233%

DM DS %

NB 267 280 5%

NB

SB

Key

SB 986 980

%

-1%

-2%

NB 176 181 3%

Direction of Travel

Do Something (Heysham - M6 Link)

DS NB DM 860 DS 841

DM DS %

Do Minimum (No Scheme)

DM

(A6: South Rd)

SB 246 247 0%

Diff

Traffic flows reduced by more than 10%

Direction of Traffic (one way system) Pedestrianised Zone Main A Roads

Traffic Flows increased by more than 10% Description of Scheme option:

Minor Roads (inc B roads)

2 way Cable St between North Rd and Meeting House Lane Scheme -

River Lune Client:

AM Period: Ave. Hour 0700-1000

Title:

Scale

Lancashire County Council Project: Lancaster & Morecambe Vision Transport Strategy

N.T.S

OPTION L - Nelson St

Lynnfield House, Church Street Altrincham, WA14 4DZ

Tel: +44 (0) 161 927 8200 Fax: +44 (0) 161 927 8499 www.fabermaunsell.com

Date: 29/01/2008

SB 234 232 -1%