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 Kevin Riley Senior/Graduate Consultant Regional Director

Lancaster District Transport Vision

Rev No Comments Date 1 Final Report 04.07.08 2 Final Report Revision 1 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

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

Table of Contents

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 Phase 1 Figure 5.3 Phase 2 Figure 5.4 Phase 3 Appendix C 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

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 Maunsells 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 Cllr Hazel Harding Cllr Roger Mace Chair Leader Leader Lancaster & Morecambe Vision Lancashire County Council Lancaster City Council

Foreword


The Task Faber Maunsell was appointed in January 2007 to develop a comprehensive 1520 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.

Executive Summary


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


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. Short- term 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


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


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 car-borne 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 districts 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.


1.1 Introduction and Context Faber Maunsell was appointed in January 2007 to develop a comprehensive 1520 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 design-orientated 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 Lancaster-Morecambe 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.

1 Introduction


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 districts 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


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 Centres 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. 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;

Lancasters 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;

Figure 1.1: Peninsula Effect


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: 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.

1.3 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.


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 publics 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

2 Vision for the Lancaster District


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-Morecambe-Heysham 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.


2.3.1 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 Image 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.


Phase Measure Image 7

High infrastructure intervention new roads for use by all modes.

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 Districts 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:

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.

2.3.2 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.


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


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;


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 free-moving, 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;


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)


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 traffic-calmed, 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)


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;


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. 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 access to dwellings and are usually a cul-de-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

Informal play areas add to the ambience of the area

Home Zones/Shared Surface - places for people, not just cars


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


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.


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 QBPs 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 (5million) and proposed


frequency (Low = >hourly, Medium = hourly 15mins, High =


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 poi

Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Board Report July 2008

Documents

Transcript of Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Board Report July 2008