Here is our response to the consultation:
Lancaster BRT Project Team
C/o Atkins
The Exchange
2nd Floor
3 New York Street
MANCHESTER
M1 4HN 4th
July 2018
Dear Sirs,
RESPONSE
TO BRT CONSULTATION
Thank
you for the opportunity to respond as a stakeholder to the consultation on the
proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) scheme for Lancaster. In view of the size and complexity of the issue
we are responding in a narrative format via this letter rather than by means of
your questionnaire. The response is, however, based on the questions raised on
that form and follows the attendance of various members of the executive
committee of the Bus Users’ Group at the consultation exercises held a number
of venues in and around Lancaster in June 2018.
1. Would you favour a BRT system in the
Lancaster area?
1.1 The Bus Users’ Group (BUG)
understands a “BRT system” to be a high-quality bus service employing
attractive, modern buses coupled with enhanced passenger waiting facilities and
facilitated by a number of bus priority measures aimed at increasing the attractiveness
of the bus service relative to the use of private cars. We comment further on
this issue in section 9.2 of this response.
1.2 Clearly, the BUG would favour the
introduction of any measures that would improve the quality and attractiveness
of bus travel in Lancaster and which would increase patronage of the network by
effecting modal shift from private transport. As an organisation representing
existing bus users however, we would not wish to see any proposed new services
abstract traffic from existing bus services to such an extent that those
services would be reduced to the detriment of passengers unable, for whatever
reason, to make use of the BRT scheme.
2. What would be your preferred route
options from Bailrigg and in the City Centre?
2.1 Whilst welcoming the opportunity to
comment, the BUG is unsure as to the value of seeking views from a wide
audience at this stage. The information available through the consultation
process appears insufficient to allow respondents to develop an informed opinion
as to the merits and demerits of each option.
For example, respondents living on or nearby each of the suggested
routes might favour that route being used in expectation of benefitting from
the service, only to find that in order to provide a faster journey from
Bailrigg to the city the BRT buses will not observe all local bus stops. On the other hand, those residents who see no
personal benefit to themselves may express support for routing options that
keep BRT away from their homes because they view it as an unnecessary
obtrusion.
2.2 Under current practice the
continuing operation of the BRT service will be undertaken on a commercial
basis by bus companies. The route and timetable will therefore in practice be
determined by the commercial operator. The results of this consultation may be
one factor taken into account in determining that, but only once operational
practicality and potential revenue have been considered.
2.2.1 However, due to the importance of
the BRT project and the application of public funding involved it may be more
appropriate for the operator(s) to be required to enter into one of the various
Quality Partnership schemes permitted by legislation including the Bus Services
Act 2017. The purpose of such a
Partnership would be to regulate route, frequency, vehicle quality and fares of
the BRT service and, if necessary, other services in the Lancaster and
Morecambe area.
2.3 The BUG has considered the three
stated options and would comment on each as follows:
2.3.1 Ashton Road. This route would have the benefit of being
lightly trafficked and less prone to traffic delay that the alternatives.
However, it does have a number of significant disadvantages: It is less direct than the A6, is narrow and
tortuous in places and passes Ripley St. Thomas School, where large numbers of
buses occupy the carriageway at each end of the school day. There would, however, appear to be potential
for northbound BRT buses to avoid the Pointer roundabout by use of the old
section of Ashton Road passing the hospital entrance, subject to suitable
alterations to the road layout at Penny Street Bridge.
The
fact that the road cannot presently support a commercial bus service and has
only a limited rural service using it that is dependent upon county council
financial support suggests that there is no potential for the BRT service to
generate patronage other than from Bailrigg Garden Village itself thus reducing
the commercial potential of any service and limiting the frequency of the BRT
service to that which can be justified solely from patronage at the outer end
of the route.
2.3.2 Bowerham Road. In contrast to Ashton Road, Bowerham Road
currently supports a frequent and well-used bus service, although even this is
reduced by 50% during University vacations and which is currently under review
by its commercial operator. There is, however, potential to generate patronage
other than from Bailrigg, although much of this will necessarily be abstracted
from existing services.
The route is, however, indirect and may be perceived as being
circuitous and hence unattractive by passengers wishing simply to travel to and
from the city centre. The BUG notes that many university students presented
with the choice of travel on the service via Bowerham and the alternative
service via Greaves will opt for the latter on the basis that it is faster and
more direct.
2.3.3 Greaves Road
(A6). This route is sometimes perceived as being the most congested of the
three options and therefore subject to the most delay. However, whilst the BUG
does not have any access to traffic data we feel that this fear is overstated
and that in any case traffic conditions are variable. The main source of delay is at the Pointer
roundabout, where all three suggested routes come together. One source of delay
to city-bound traffic is the fact that traffic coming off Bowerham Road has
automatic priority over traffic on the A6.
If it were possible to reverse this priority by means of traffic
management measures, or if buses on the A6 could be given priority to get to
the front of the queue at the roundabout (which might entail the removal of
on-street parking) then the Greaves Road route would be superior in every
respect. Delays at the Boot & Show
crossroads in Hala would also need to be addressed by bus priority measures
including possibly transponders on vehicles to extend “green time” at the
signals for approaching buses.
2.3.4 It should be
noted that traffic delays on all these corridors are confined to in-bound
traffic in the morning and afternoon peaks. There are no significant delays to
out-bound traffic once the Pointer roundabout has been reached. It should also be noted that the present
maximum demand for bus travel on this corridor is “against the flow” at peak
times. Buses from the city to the University in the morning peak are much
better patronised than buses heading into the city, with the opposite applying
in the afternoon peak. Duplicate buses provided to carry students to the
University in the mornings return to the city “not in service”, such is the
lack of demand. This reflects the dominance of the student market on the
corridor and suggests that there is significant spare capacity to cater for
“with flow” demand from Bailrigg using existing buses.
3.
Should traffic in the city centre be restricted in favour of BRT?
3.1 The BUG would be in favour of any
traffic management measures that would assist the operation of ALL bus services
(not merely BRT services) in the city centre, including restrictions on private
car traffic.
3.2. Lancashire County Council, in its
Transport Masterplan for Lancaster (October 2016) in the section 29 (Lancaster
City Centre) says:
“There are large numbers of cars coming into
the city each day, many from local areas. We also need to remove as many of
these as we can by providing alternatives that really work for people, offering
genuine convenience beyond that of the car. Then those cars that still head for Lancaster need, where possible, to
be intercepted before they reach the city centre.”
This would
appear to support the restriction of private car use in the city centre.
4. Is
the bus station in the right location?
4.1. In many ways the bus station is
not in the optimum location, being on the fringe of the city centre and remote
from the railway station, to which it is poorly connected both by bus and due
to the road layout by other forms of transport.
However, it is noted that where they have a choice passengers,
especially daytime shoppers, will alight from buses in George Street and Common
Garden Street at the uphill end of the city centre and make their way downhill
to the bus station to catch a bus home. The bus station therefore works well
for them in conjunction with city centre stops.
4.2. The BUG has some concerns that
what this question is really asking is “Do we need a bus station at all?” The
answer is, emphatically, “yes”! The bus
station fulfils several roles.
·
It provides an easy interchange for passengers
needing to transfer between different services.
·
It provides safe and relatively comfortable
accommodation for passengers waiting for buses.
·
There is a travel shop providing information and
answering queries (although this would be improved if the shop’s operator could
be persuaded to provide information on all bus services and not just its own
and if the opening hours were extended to include Saturday afternoons and
Sundays).
·
There are toilets and a small shop and tea bar
as well as rest and refreshment facilities for bus crews (albeit restricted to
staff of the dominant operator).
·
Finally,
but perhaps most importantly the station provides a visible presence of the
city’s bus network and an obvious point of reference for passengers,
particularly those who may be using buses for the first time.
4.3 The BUG would like to suggest that
the value of this role could be established by sending a member of staff to
Lancaster to find out how to get to Blackpool by bus and then sending him or
her to Blackpool (where there is no bus station) to work out how to get back!
5. What is the most convenient location for
bus stops in the city centre?
5.1. Given the extent of
pedestrianisation and the current road layout the stops in George Street and
Common Garden Street are probably already the optimum locations. However, if the necessary changes to the
layout and traffic flows could be effected then transferring the George Street
stops to Common Garden Street and locating them on the opposite site of the
road would create a transport hub which, with the addition of toilets and an
enquiry point could replicate several of the advantages of the bus station in a
more central location. The BUG does, of
course, realise that significant changes to the way these roads and nearby
junctions are used would be necessary.
5.2. If large-scale revisions to road
use in the city centre are being considered then further useful locations for
bus stops would be southbound on China Street or King Street, near to the
junction with Market Street and northbound on Thurnham Street near to the
junction with Gage Street. Both these
locations would be on the shopping area side of the streets, to prevent the
need for passengers to cross the road concerned and would require the one-way
system to be reversed.
6.
Should buses serve the railway station?
6.1. All the theories of public
transport planning suggest that they should and in mainland Europe this would
be the norm, even when doing so is not necessarily in the direct interests of
passengers who have no wish to go to the station.
6.2. Some buses do go via the station,
but the present road layout does not make this easy. Of the two services that
currently operate via the station the 11 to Marsh has to pass it anyway and the
U3R provides a useful link between the University and the station, whilst also
providing the only bus service to the Quay.
It would be possible for other services, including the BRT, to serve the
station as an extension to existing routes although operation would have to be
via Meeting House Lane in both directions so as to avoid the possibility of double-deck
buses encountering the low bridge on The Quay, which restricts service U3R to
single-deck operation.
6.3. In the case of the corridor
proposed for BRT operation the present balance of two buses per hour to and
from the station is probably in line with demand and need not be augmented, but
without knowing more about the travel patterns of the future residents of the
garden village it is impossible to say what the optimum level of service should
be. There is, however, currently unmet demand for services to and from the
railway station on Sundays and Bank Holidays which could be covered by the BRT
service.
7. Would more people use public
transport/BRT if it served the railway station?
7.1 If at present there is suppressed
demand for travel from south Lancaster to the railway station which is not
being met by existing provision then routeing BRT via the station could
increase patronage. If, however, doing so diverted the service away from the
central shopping and employment areas served by the stops at Common Garden
Street and George Street, or if it increased journey times for passengers not
wishing to travel to or from the station it could have the opposite effect.
7.2 If a way could be found for BRT to
serve the railway station that was not to the detriment of passengers
travelling to other parts of the city centre the BUG would support that move.
8. How can car use be reduced in local
areas?
8.1 It could be argued that car use “in
local areas” is not the problem. It is when those vehicles all attempt to enter
the city centre or other congested areas that the need for action arises. The
car can, in fact, provide a useful feeder service from residential areas to
trunk bus routes to and from the city centre through a system of informal “park
and ride” arrangements, providing that the necessary “parking” can be managed
appropriately.
8.2 Reducing car traffic in the city
centre can be accomplished either through a “carrot” or a “stick” approach. The
proposed BRT scheme and public transport improvements generally are an example
of the former. However, the BUG suspects that the main reason people chose to
travel by car is the convenience that it offers and that in practice even an
improved bus service will not match the level of convenience obtained by most
car users.
8.3 Significant reductions in car use
will come about only through the application of measures that reduce result in
car use becoming less convenient and attractive that the alternatives. Such
measures include:
·
Increased car parking charges to change the
balance between the perceived cost of car and bus use.
·
Reduced availability of car parking spaces in
the city centre.
·
The introduction of road-user charging for
vehicles entering the central area.
The
BUG recognises that such measures would be opposed by the majority of existing
car drivers and would be difficult to introduce.
9. Additional Comments
9.1 The consultation events attended by
the BUG executive provided very little information as to what form the BRT
would take, other than it would be bus-based. The Group would therefore like to
put forward its suggestions as to how the attractiveness of the system could be
maximised in the eyes of users.
9.2 The Vehicles.
9.2.1 All vehicles used on the BRT
service should be new at the time of operation commencing. They would need to
be internally and externally “refreshed” after five years and replaced after no
more than ten years’ service. We would recommend that the policies of
the bus operator “Transdev” and, in particular its vehicle policy on the
flagship service 36 between Leeds, Harrogate and Ripon be studied in this
regard as they provide an excellent example of best practice.
9.2.2. The vehicles should have an
attractive external livery that distinguishes them from other buses operating
in the city and readily identifies them as BRT vehicles.
9.2.3 They should have high-quality
seating with adequate leg room. The seating capacity should be kept below the
theoretical maximum for the type of vehicle employed so as to create an
impression of spaciousness and comfort at least equivalent to, and preferably
surpassing, a medium-size private car.
9.2.4 Free-to-use WiFi should be
provided and the vehicles equipped with audio/visual next-stop announcements.
9.2.5 Vehicle layout, fare structures
and ticketing systems should be designed to optimise rapid boarding and
alighting of passengers to minimise bus-stop dwell-time.
9.3 The Stops
9.3.1 The bus stops themselves should
be of high-quality with level-access boarding, high-quality waiting shelters to
a distinctive design with adequate seating, and fitted with real-time
information displays. Such facilities should be provided not just on the
sections of route where the BRT will be the only service, but throughout the
route followed by the service. In view of the potential for traffic to and from
the University in addition to the city centre these standards should be
applied, in full, at all stops in both directions.
9.3.2 Stopping places within the Garden
Village development should be determined as part of the design of the road
network so as to be easily accessible on foot from adjacent housing rather than
being an afterthought as is too often the case.
They should be located and designed in such a way that waiting
passengers can easily see the approaching bus from within the sheltered and
seating area and that, similarly, bus drivers have a clear view of waiting
passengers.
9.4 The route
9.4.1 Irrespective
of the route chosen, priority in the use of the available road space should be
allocated to BRT wherever possible. Such
priority could take the form of bus lanes, bus priority at junctions and
traffic signals and bus-only access, particularly in the city centre. The Group suggests that bus lanes and
bus-only access roads be surfaced in a contrasting colour from the adjacent
general traffic lanes so as to emphasise the priority and importance of the BRT
lane.
10.
Other Routes
10.1 The consultation and certainly
the questionnaire, appears to concentrate solely upon the route between south Lancaster and the
city centre. The BUG understands that
the full BRT scheme consists of additional links to Caton Road (Park and Ride)
and to Morecambe. We have, however,
confined our response to the south Lancaster portion of the scheme and would
welcome an opportunity to comment further on the remainder of the proposed
route when appropriate.
Yours faithfully
JIM
DAVIES
CHAIR
LANCASTER
DISTRICT BUS USERS’ GROUP
JD 240618/1
LBUG
