What are the problems?

Local people and businesses need to be able to move themselves and their goods around the district. People need a safe and efficient infrastructure so that they can access work, leisure, shopping and other facilities such as health care.


To summarise, 80% of our district congestion is local.

Traffic congestion costs UK business approximately £20bn pa (CBI 2003).

Based on local population data this means that around £60m of this burden applies to Lancaster district.

Road traffic grew by 73% from 1980 to 2002 (DfT 2002) and by 1.7% in 2004 alone (DfT 2005). The costs of not dealing with the congestion issue are immense in terms of economics, environment and health. However, the Government recognises that we cannot build our way out of the problem
(Transport 2010 – meeting the local transport challenge)

Road transport makes up around 21% of man-made carbon dioxide emissions in the UK (RAC report 2003). Lancashire County Council’s projected increases in road traffic with the Link Road may seriously compromise Government’s ability to meet European Air Quality Management Area targets.

Good transport planning should:

Enhance quality of life
Give real choices

Local transport systems need to be:
Accessible  Affordable
         Attractive   Effective
           Efficient    Reliable

Even though Government demands that major transport schemes need to be appraised against alternatives, the public has never been offered any alternative plans to the existing Heysham to M6 Link road that don’t involve road building.

What is the solution?

TSLM are calling for consideration of the other options and a formal appraisal of their costs and impacts. Only then can a proper decision be made on what to do about our transport and travel needs. There is no single scheme that will solve everything. The plan must include many different elements that together provide a better way forward for the area. We believe these solutions can:

  • Make this area a much better place in which to live and work
  • Lead to an effective foundation for real and sustainable economic growth
  • Provide a premier transport network which itself will generate employment

These different elements are:

Park & Ride

Community Rail

Light Rail

Freight on Rail

Quality Bus



School Transport

School Travel Plans

Workplace Travel Plans

Personalised Travel Plans

Integrated Ticketing

Car Share & Car Clubs

Consolidated Distribution

Strategic HGV Routes

Lancaster City Gyratory System

Heysham Port

Park & Ride

Park and Ride is already a viable option as demonstrated around the UK.
York and Oxford readily spring to mind as prime examples, but we now have Preston as a beacon project here in this county.
Walton le Dale and Portway serve the city and reduce the number of car journeys into urban centres, thereby helping to reduce congestion and pollution
(Lancashire draft LTP 2005)


Preston Park and Ride offers over 1,000 parking spaces which encourages road users to convert to public transport for at least some of their journey into the city centre. Walton le Dale serves 810 and the Portway / Harrington Road sites add 390 places to the served area.

Typical features of the park and ride provision are:

  • Free and easy parking with typically £1-70 return bus fares
  • Easy access buses which leave every 6 minutes throughout the day
  • Secure parking, CCTV, fully illuminated, manned sites and ticket kiosks
  • Covered waiting area, seating, toilets, plus disabled and parent facilities
  • Operating 7.30 to 19.30 Mon to Sat. 9.30 to 17.30 Sun and Bank Holidays

Lancashire County Council’s Draft LTP2 has a headline target of constructing 8 park and ride schemes in Lancashire by 2016.
The stated aim in that document is to help introduce operations on busiest corridors to reduce congestion in the county’s urban centres.

Lancaster City Council has identified 4 areas where park and ride is in accordance with the local transport plan, and these locations are identified as –
Caton Road
Morecambe Road
Scotforth Road
Slyne Road

(Lancaster Council Policy Statement T8)

Research in 1993 for Lancashire County by Steer Davis Gleave investigated Rapid Transit Systems.

As part of their report the cost of park and ride infrastructure was defined.

With inflation, today’s capital cost of each site would cost approximately £1.5m

By using additional data from the Steer Davis Gleave report the provision of park and ride for Lancaster District can be calculated with a reasonable degree of confidence. Using the same allowances for inflation etc the approximate costs projected for the 4 park and ride sites mentioned are –

  • Infrastructure construction costs (excluding Land) of approx £6m
  • Operational costs (assuming 12 quality buses used) of approx £1.6m pa

The estimates of patronage also based on work in the report would suggest a transfer of travel from car to park and ride of 14%. Based on 2001 base traffic flow data the immediate uptake would potentially reduce peak hour traffic into the city centre by up to 1900 vehicle movements both am and pm.

Community Rail

The development of Community Rail is endorsed in the Government White Paper The Future of Rail, published July 2004. Community Rail Development Strategy covers local and rural lines and provides a broad framework within which they can be developed. The Strategy lists 56 routes which the Strategic Rail Authority propose to designate, and makes up 10.5% of the national network. It is designed to improve the value-for-money and social value of local and rural railways in three ways –

      • Increasing ridership and income
      • Greater community involvement
      • Managing costs down by better use of rolling stock

Achieving the objectives of the strategy depends on partnership and active support from a wide range of stakeholders including local authorities, users and community groups.

Lancaster District Local Plan has a range of policy statements which lend support to the development of the Community rail strategy.

It stops construction that would prejudice rail halts at Hest Bank or Mossgate, Heysham, but it also recognises that potential for additional sites exists at Westgate and Bailrigg.


Lancashire County Council’s Draft LTP2 contains important statements which promote the provision of new railway stations to encourage the dramatic increase in the number of people who travel by rail.
The LCC Headline Target in the document says
 “by 2016, increase patronage from stations in Lancashire by 75% based on 2001 levels”

The Hest Bank Junction to Heysham section of our local railway network is identified as one of the 56 routes provisionally designated as a community route.
The development of Community Rail will be especially significant in light of the targets set in the LTP, the desire to meet targets relating to removing congestion, and the need to meet environmental targets which have international obligations.

Northwest Regional Development Agency’s Business Plan identifies significant funds (£10m between 2005 and 2008) for “Connectivity” projects, and mentions rail access improvements to ports specifically. The timetable is very short for action to be taken. Project delivery plans are to be developed and agreed by December 2005. The first phase of funding will be committed by March 2006.

TSLM urges a partnership of stakeholders to be formed to pursue this element of the alternative solutions. Such a partnership might include –Lancashire County Council, Lancaster City Council,Rail User Groups, SRA, NWRDA and others.

Light Rail

Light Rail is :

lightrail001lightrail002_web- Safe and speedy, avoiding congestion through segregation and priority

- Clean and green, enhancing the environment with no polluting emissions

- Reliable and versatile, running at high speeds when segregated

- Adaptable, coping with tight curves, steep gradients and narrow roadways

Nottingham Express Transit is a Light Rail system with considerable on-street running. Currently there are 15 tram stops attracting some 5.1m passenger journeys each year. Plans for the future involve extending the system to 3 routes with 40+ stops and 25+km of dedicated track.
The importance of the project in reducing environmental damage is seen in the Governments willingness to provide £167m funding over a 10 year period. The expectation is that the trams will eventually help remove 2 million car journeys per year from the city’s congested network.

2001 saw the provisional approval of Leeds Supertram scheme, covering 28km of track with approximately 50 stops and 40 articulated trams. The network would serve the city core with branches to the north, south and east. It will contribute to the Government’s target of a 50% increase in Light Rail use in the UK over the next 10 years.
The Government is insisting that the project does not exceed £500m, and ordered a rethink in mid-2004 when it was suggested that it might cost twice that sum. 25% of the funding is expected to be found by private sector funding.

Lancashire County Council has investigated Light Rail for the Lancaster and Morecambe District before. A Feasibility Guide For Rapid Transit Systems In Lancashire was completed by consultants Steer Davis Gleave in June 1993.
The systems investigated were Light Rail, Guided Light Transit, Guided Bus, Bus Priority Measures and Quality Bus Routes. Each of these was considered in relation to the local traffic corridor from Heysham Harbour, through Morecambe and Lancaster to Bairigg and Galgate. Light Rail, Guided Light Transit and Guided Bus were all found to require large capital expenditure and substantial operating costs, which effectively produced negative cost / benefit ratios. At that time the decision was made to pursue the less financially draining routes of Bus Priority Measures and Quality Bus.

A study from 12 years ago cannot be relevant today. Technology has changed and congestion increased. We believe that Lancashire County Council should look again at Rapid Transit Systems for the area and recalculate the costs and benefits

piggyback_v.small Freight   on Rail 

What is the problem with freight?

  • Businesses need to move goods efficiently in, out and through the area
  • HGV’s weighing up to 44 tonnes are damaging the local environment
  • Traffic congestion costs UK businesses around £20 billion per year

Which areas generate the HGV traffic?

  • Lancaster and Morecambe shopping centres
  • Heysham Port
  • Luneside East and West Regeneration Sites (St Georges Quay)
  • White Lund Industrial Estate and Mellishaw Retail Park
  • Ladies Walk Industrial Estate, Lansil Industrial Estate (Caton Road)
  • Cottams Farm and Kingsway Regeneration site
  • Heysham Industrial Estate (former Shell site)
  • Major Industrial Estate and Lancaster West Business Park (former ICI site)

Did you know that:

  • HGV traffic grew by 2.9% in 2004 (DfT Statistics 2005)
  • HGV’s are involved in 22% of fatal accidents but account for only 7% of road traffic (DfT Statistics 2005)
  • Emissions from freight transport increased by 59% between 1990 and 2002 (Office of National Statistics 2004)
  • A 40 tonne, 5 axle lorry causes over 10,000 times more damage to road surfaces that an average car (Highways Agency 1994)

What are the good points about freight on rail?

  • The average freight train removes 50 HGV journeys from our roads (Network Rail 2004)
  • Per tonne carried, rail produces about 10% of the carbon dioxide produced by road transportation (AEA Technology 2004)
  • In 2004/05 rail freight moved 20.66 billion net tonne kilometres, saving 1.43 billion lorry kilometres.




What are the local barriers to freight on rail?

  • Limited capacity is available between Bare Lane and Heysham, but better signalling may overcome only one train on the section at any one time.
  • Several low bridges would require structural change before lorries could be moved “piggyback” by rail from Heysham Port.
  • Trains travelling south from the Heysham branch line cross both tracks of the West Coast Main Line and would require better signalling / timetabling.

   We believe that there must be serious investigations into –

  • Providing better signalling and timetabling on the branch line
  • Making structural changes to facilitate HGV movement by rail
  • Containerisation of freight and freight handling systems

Quality Bus

Since the 1993 feasibility study by Steer Davis Gleave, “Quality Bus” and bus priority measures have been the adopted approach to providing a local public transport service. Major progress has been made by designating the Heysham, Morecambe, Lancaster, University route as the Primary Bus Corridor.bus lane
Bus priority measures have been introduced at strategic points along the corridor to facilitate the preferential treatment of public transport movements. These actions must be commended, but is qualified by the question:
Why have Quality Bus and bus priority measures taken so long to implement when infrastructure modifications have been minimal?

Lancashire County Council – Draft LTP2 Headline Target

“By 2016 increase bus journeys within Lancashire by 20% based on 2001 levels”

At first glance these look like challenging targets that work towards government, regional and local aims of reducing car usage.
But when we look closer in Lancaster district for 2001, 3,130 (5.6%) people journeyed to work daily by bus. A 20% increase leads to only 3,760 required to meet targets. But the number of households is predicted to increase 16% by 2006

Assuming the same proportion of workers use the bus, 3,630 are projected to use the bus without other intervention measures

Therefore only 130 people over 10 years are required to shift modes in order to achieve LCC targets (13 people per year between 2006 and 2016).

Ways to move forward:

  • Set more challenging targets within a shorter time scale
  • Introduce additional Quality Bus routes across the district
  • Investigate vehicles which use cleaner technology such as LPG
  • Define additional bus priority measures around Lancaster’s gyratory system

    priority lights bus stop02 newbus



What are the problems?

      bad parking02
      Vehicles blocking pavements
      Junctions difficult to cross
      Safety fears on isolated paths
      Dog excreta and litter
      Heavy traffic on key roads
      Poor signs and directions

      Moving people around the district on foot in a safe and efficient way is a major part of the Government strategy to encourage better health.

Possible solutions –

  • Promote “walk share” for those who would rather not walk alone
  • Encourage employers to provide showers and lockers for walking employees
  • Encourage employers to offer walking allowances instead of car mileage payments
  • CCTV and emergency phones along routes which require improved safety
  • Improved strategic crossing facilities with short pedestrian waiting times
  • Maintain all footpaths and pavements to a high quality and ensure they are treated in adverse weather conditions
    footpath102   no vehicles                 roadsafetytraining
  • Provide high quality maps with distances and walking times as well as giving direction
  • Provide maps which adopt a “head up” approach, which means orientation matching the users view
  • Advertise & deliver pedestrian safety training in schools and colleges, workplaces, and to members of the public
  • Offer incentives to get people started, e.g. lunch vouchers, folding umbrellas, etc

Development of Lancaster District’s cycle network has opened up routes for walkers, although there are still many areas which need developing – e.g. White Lund.

Complete all of the missing linkages in the Draft Lancaster District Walking Strategy 2004 and include connections to - Lancaster Royal Infirmary, Lancaster Station, Lune Industrial Estate, Mossgate, Heysham.  

Case study – Bristol

The Bristol Legible City Initiative was conceived by Bristol City Council in 1996. It’s projects include direction signs, on-street information panels with city and area maps, plus printed walking maps. The pedestrian signing system helps visitors find their way around the city centre and encourages people to explore on foot or using public transport. These projects communicate the city consistently and effectively to visitors and residents alike. Attention to detail ensures the information is accurate, in the right place, at the right time, and provides continuity. The Development Team visualised a number of characters and their journeys at the planning stage, to be sure they were meeting the users needs. Support teams have evolved to ensure that legible services continue to be up to date and cleanliness of displays maintained.


Case Study – Buckinghamshire

In 2001, Bucks County Council launched a package of measures, which included the promotion of cycling, collectively called “Travel Choice”. They have provided two new, locked, CCTV surveyed cycle parking stores, with 2 showers and 60 lockers. Staff are entitled to discounts at a local bike shop, which also offers a repair service, and the Council is affiliated to the Cyclists Touring Club so all staff can get free bike insurance. Cycle mileage allowances of 12p per mile are offered and two pool bikes were introduced in September 2001. There are free summer road safety and maintenance courses which staff can attend, a bike loan scheme and interest free loans of up to £1000 are available for bike purchase. Initial costs for set-up were £12,000, with annual running costs amounting to £15,000.

Lancaster district has a good network of existing cycle paths, which are part of the National Cycle Network. Routes include Millennium Park, Millennium Bridge, and disused railway lines between Lancaster and Morecambe, and along Caton Road. In July 2001 around 450 cycles per day used the Lancaster to Morecambe link, making it the second best used route in the district (Lancaster City Council). However, there are still a number of gaps!


New route is required from Salt Ayre Cycle Path along the Lune to Mossgate. There are possible links to Middleton, Overton and Heysham Port. Funding could be sought from ERDF, the Rural Enterprise Scheme and through Landfill Tax Credits


A new branch of the University path which avoids the congested and hilly section along Bowerham Road by a new link from Barton Road to Dale Street. Contributions could be sought from Lancaster University, Lancaster City Council, County via the LTP

Lancaster City Centre

Implement Lancaster’s Inner Cycle Ring with links to Moor Lane and Castle, Church Street and the Bus Station, Edward Street and Lune Riverside. Improvements to the cycle parking and the signage are needed. Possible funding via Europe

Employers encouraged to provide covered storage sites at place of work

BOOOST tax exemption for employers to purchase bikes for employees

Promoting Cyclepoint and Budgie Bikes to extend range of services

All buses equipped to carry bikes (estimated cost £400k – J. Whitelegg)

Cycle paths with clear signposts, CCTV safety, and patrols along route

LCC to access up to £750k for cycle routes from EDZ / ERDF

School Transport

An American Bus Makes Sense To Us (Education Telegraph article 15/06/05)

Yellow school buses will save parents and commuters time, and the economy money explains Peter Lampl.

Traffic congestion is a hot issue. A big part of the problem is the school run, which accounts for 20% of peak traffic during the morning rush hour and is increasing every year. In America, most children who live more than a mile from their school travel for free on a yellow bus.

Research by the Boston Consulting Group for the Sutton Trust has shown that the number of children travelling to school by car has doubled over the last 20 years, resulting in an enormous waste of time for parents and other commuters. The school run also leads to 40 deaths and 900 serious injuries a year, and harms the environment by releasing 2 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Contrast this with the North American experience. There, almost every child who lives more than a mile from the school is entitled to a free place on a yellow school bus. As a result, more than half of pupils go to school by special bus service, compared to less than 10% in Britain. I have ridden on yellow school buses both in America and in the first trials in Britain. They were good experiences: each bus has trained drivers assigned to specific routes, allocated places for each child and numerous safety features, such as CCTV.

Unlike public buses, they also pick up close to home and drop off at the school gates. This can reduce truancy and crime, while children get their chatter out of the way on the bus and arrive at school ready to learn. They are popular with parents, pupils and schools and – crucially – they are very safe. British statistics show that while a car is about 15 times safer than going by bike or on foot, a regular bus is 50 times safer and, based on the US experience, a school bus is likely to be well over 100 times safer.

It makes sense for one bus to pick up 50 or so children and deliver them to school in less than an hour, rather than having large numbers of cars driving each child to and fro. Economic analysis confirms this. The Boston Consulting Group calculates the cost of providing school buses for primary school pupils who live over a mile from school would be £184 million a year. The benefits to parents in terms of time saved and reduced car costs are estimated at £350 million. The benefits to the rest of society in terms of safety, environmental improvements and time saved by other road users amounts to another £100 million. That’s a total saving of £450 million a tear – or almost 2½ times the £184 million cost.


But the lack of school transport has a social cost too. Research shows that children from poorer backgrounds are likely to attend the school closest to their home, regardless of it’s suitability or standard. Families in the top 20% of income own on average 2 cars, and their children travel 2½ miles to school. Those in the bottom 20% of income own on average ½ car and their children travel a mile to school. The government promise of school choice has little meaning unless children are able to get conveniently to and from their chosen school each day.

So tomorrow (16/06/05) at 11.30am, MP’s, transport campaigners and supporters of school choice will board a yellow bus at the Houses of Parliament to launch a new report written by us, the Sutton Trust, and published by the Social Market Foundation and Policy Exchange think-tanks. It urges the government to introduce a national network of school buses and to place a statutory requirement on local education authorities to provide access to school transport for every pupil. Specifically we propose that the scheme be based on the yellow bus, although subsidised access to public transport systems for older children could be substituted if appropriate.

The guarantee of school transport cannot be open ended. We propose that the statutory obligation should apply to a limited number of schools (say 5) that are situated nearest to the pupil’s home. Local authorities should decide on fare levels, although the government should recommend a flat rate that amounts to no more than £1 per day per pupil. Councils should waive fares for the first few months of any new scheme to encourage take-up. Even a £1 per day fare would act as a disincentive to parents on low incomes and to those with more than one child. On that basis, we propose that pupils who are eligible for free school meals should be eligible for free school transport. In addition, fares for a parent’s second and third child should be reduced to around half the full fare.

We also propose that the start times of schools to be appropriately staggered – which would in any case spread the school traffic – and that provision be made for at least 2 afternoon journeys per school to allow pupils to participate in after-school activities. Yellow school buses would be more cost-effective if they made more than one journey in the morning and afternoon, and served both primary and secondary schools.

They sight of yellow buses on the streets would be a powerful visual demonstration that the Government is doing something practical about the two big areas of public service concern – transport and education, whilst at the same time acknowledging the real fears that parents have for the safety of their children.

Sir Peter Lampl is chairman of the Sutton Trust, which provides educational opportunities for children who come from non-privileged backgrounds.

School Travel Plans

Case Study – Buckinghamshire

Work on school travel plans began in 1999 with the initial emphasis on physical measures such as traffic calming. Recently the focus has shifted to measures not linked to infrastructure. There is a clear framework for school travel plans with each school categorised at one of three levels depending on progress towards implementation. The most advanced are eligible for funding for travel plan ideas from an awards scheme, creating an incentive to reduce car travel. Progress response rates are good (47% in 2002), and car mode share for journeys to school fell from 45% to 37% in the period 2002/2003. The most active schools have achieved impressive reductions in car use ranging from 21% to 39%

Case Study – Merseyside

School travel planning is co-ordinated through a partnership of 5 local authorities and Merseytravel and have a team of 7 working on travel planning. Since 1999 the team have worked with over 100 schools and average reductions of 10.2% in straightforward car usage have been achieved. The results are mainly explained by introduction of “walking buses” or designated walking days each week such as “Walking Wednesday”. Success of the programme is put down to the partnership approach and the joint team dynamism and focus.

Case Study – York

York’s work on travel plans is complemented by parallel programmes on safe routes to school, school safety zones, cycle parking and pedestrian and cyclist road safety training. City-wide surveys were carried out between 1999 and 2002 to provide the monitoring data. Primary schools with school travel plans or cycle parking have achieved average reductions in car use. The introduction of safety zones do not appear to have affected car use, but it has been effective in halving the number of reported accidents amongst 8 and 9 year olds.

Lancashire County Council are lagging behind many authorities –

  • 53% of primary school children travelled to school by car in 2002
  • no headline targets relating to school travel appear in LTP2
  • LCC only aims to achieve full School Travel Plan coverage in 2010

We would urge the Lancashire County Council to investigate these examples of good practice and implement appropriate School Travel Plans with much greater urgency than currently indicated.

Workplace Travel Plans

A workplace travel plan sets out steps to encourage staff to travel to work by public transport, on foot, by bike or by car share.
(Smarter Choices. DfT 2004)

Evidence from the Smarter Choices research suggests that local authorities will stand the best chance of having an impact if they employ a dedicated team of workplace travel officers to promote travel planning to business.
Travel plans will vary according to business circumstances but might include some of the following –

     Dedicated work buses
       Personal journey plans
         Season ticket loans
          Special travel deals
            Secure cycle parking
             Changing facilities
               Car sharing schemes
                Restricted parking
                  Parking charges
                   Variations to work hours
                     New public services
                       Travel information centre
                         Newsletters and publicity
                           Car free bonuses

Case study:

Birmingham City Council operates an initiative called Company Travelwise which offers a menu of options. One attractive benefit is a 50% discount on public transport season tickets for those who give up driving to work. Some 165 companies are affiliated to Company Travelwise, 20 of which are support companies. About 29% of Birmingham’s workforce are now employed by organisations affiliated to Company Travelwise.

Case Study:

Bristol City Councils workplace travel plan programme involves contact with 85 employers and nearly 30,000 employees. There are some award schemes for car use reduction and grant schemes for employers. Some plans have achieved reductions in car use in excess of 10%. Other linked initiatives include showcase bus routes, car clubs, car share and a dense network of cycle tracks.

Other areas with workplace travel plan initiatives in place are –

    • Cambridgeshire
    • Buckinghamshire
    • Merseyside
    • Nottingham
    • York

Lancashire County Council only employs one full-time Workplace Travel Plan Officer, supplemented by one other employee working for the EDZ areas of Lancaster & Morecambe District.

Personalised Travel Plans

Personalised travel planning is a targeted marketing technique, providing travel advice and information to people based on an understanding of their personal trip patterns. The public transport information and marketing projects examined as part of the Smarter Choices research included projects promoting an individual bus route to the people most likely to use it. Travel awareness campaigns aim to improve general public understanding of the problems caused by traffic growth and to encourage people to think about their own travel behaviour.

Personalised Travel Planning
might include –

pocket sized timetable

personal travel advice

plans for regular trips

trial ticket offers

loan of a bike

walk and cycle maps

Reports from personal travel planning project areas suggests that it may be possible to cut car use substantially.

- Gloucester 9%

- Bristol 10%

Car drivers were more likely to take extra bus trips in the households that had received the personalised planning advice.


Information And Marketing
might include –

targeted marketing



network promotion

booklet production

aspirational adverts

Clear information and marketing can lead to more passengers on public transport. Some examples are:

- London 31% in 4 yrs

- Perth 63% in 3 yrs

 -Bucks 42% in 3 yrs

Long term decline in bus use has reversed in Nottingham by the use of re-branding and better marketing.

Travel Awareness Campaigns
might include –







Most local awareness campaigns are aimed at whole populations but generally reach 20 to 40% of residents.

In Nottingham 67% of residents were aware of the “Big Wheel” campaign. Associated costs for the project were just under 40 pence a year for each resident.


Lancashire CC have stated their intent towards travel plans in the Draft LTP2 document as part of the EU Civitas project, but only in Preston and no Headline Targets are applied. Capital and revenue budgets are not known.

Marketing efforts are making progress in Lancashire, with the recent introduction of grouped bus service leaflets for a locality rather than just individual routes. In addition, the Traveline network now offers passenger information about both bus and rail timetabling.

Integrated Ticketing

Case Study – Merseyside Travelwise

Across Merseyside there is a comprehensive network of frequent buses, trains and ferries. This regional network links national rail and coach services, ferry terminals and the international airports of Liverpool and Manchester.
Prepaid ticketing makes travelling on public transport cheaper and much more convenient for either simply travelling to and from work, or for more complex multi-purpose journeys.
Travel passes that enable weekend travel and travel on other bus routes are a considerable perk, which can encourage people to use public transport, and also a financial incentive for companies to include in their recruitment packages.

The main forms of ticket on offer are –

SOLO (for bus use only)

TRIO (for bus, train and ferry)

STUDENT (discounted for term-times only)


Integrated Ticketing in the Northwest

The “Northern Connect Card” is mentioned in Moving Forward: The Northern Way (September 2004) as one integrated travel card. Regional Development Agencies and local transport authorities are expected to approve specifications for the card by late 2005.

Such “smartcards” offer the prospect of simpler travel across complex journeys where more than one mode of transport is used. The ability to prepay (like most seasonal passes, and London’s “Oyster Card”) or be linked to a single, monthly travel bill could overcome one of the main barriers to many people shifting their journey modes to that of integrated public transport.

Lancashire is working in partnership with other Northwest Unitary and District Councils to introduce smartcard technology throught the “NoWcard” project.

180,000 concessionary cards have been issued, and installation of 1,700 card readers on buses is underway, allowing a record of journeys to be analysed for travel demand patterns.


TSLM would like to see –

  • The system expanded beyond concessionary users to all travellers
  • Card readers installed on trains, trams and trolleybuses
  • Inclusion of car clubs and cycle hire etc within the scheme

Car Sharing & Car Clubs

Car share

Case study – Milton Keynes

CARSHAREMK has attracted over 1000 members in its first 9 months through incentives such as free parking for sharers, dedicated bays in prime locations and discounts on local buses. Launched at the same time as increased parking charges in the town centre, it is used mainly by commuters to central Milton Keynes. Over 90% of members use the scheme routinely, and shared cars make up 8% of parking at peak times. Recruitment is steady at about 100 members per month even though no concerted campaigns have been used to target large local employers.


Case study – Devon

Carsharedevon.com is a countywide car share matching website run by Devon County Council. Employers and individuals can register on the site and in the first 12 months over 1600 people had done so. It was publicised through:

  • 40 commuter route signs
  • Radio advertisements
  • 116 bus back adverts
  • 5000 leaflets to NHS workers
  • Contact with 500 employers
  • Publicity on franked mail
  • Displays in libraries
  • Messages to council staff

Smarter Choices research indicated that an active member of a scheme might save about 4,500km per year.

An automated web based scheme might cost between £400 and £8,000 to set up.

Car clubs

Car clubs give people the choice of a fleet of vehicles parked in their own neighbourhood. This gives them access to a car whenever they need it, but without the high fixed costs of individual car ownership.

Case study – Edinburgh

CityCarClub is a flagship car club that has seen highs and lows in its progress. Originally backed by Budget Rent-a-Car it went through turbulent times when they pulled out, but has since been re-launched and is going from strength to strength. Its members now have reciprocal access to car club facilities in Bristol, London, Brighton and Stroud. This gives people the option of using public transport for longer journeys while still having access to a car at their destination.

Car clubs are known to operate in:

  • Leeds
  • Edinburgh
  • London
  • Bristol
  • Brighton
  • Stroud

All car clubs need start up funding -which might typically be around the £100,000 to £160,000 mark (Smarter Choices 2004).

Lancaster City Council has in the past commissioned a preliminary feasibility study for a car club in the city. Although the project is still live, there is currently no funding that has been allocated to take the project forward.



Consolidated Distribution

Lancashire County Council’s Draft LTP2 considers the environmental and social impacts of freight in Section 3.5, and promotes modal shift wherever possible. One of the key issues relating to Lancaster’s congestion problem is that goods vehicles are restricted in the pedestrian centre. One way to reduce the goods vehicle congestion is to develop a freight distribution centre for local deliveries.

Also known as “shared logistics platforms” or “urban consolidation centres”, the idea is to intercept freight destined for Lancaster and Morecambe close to a motorway junction or rail terminal, and to transfer it onto smaller, cleaner, more acceptable vehicles for delivery to local businesses at pre-arranged times. This would result in fewer large vehicles using local roads, more efficient delivery of smaller loads, and creation of local jobs.

Case study – Bristol

In 2005, Bristol City Council and logistics firm Excel set up a freight centre outside Bristol city centre to serve the Broadmead shopping area. Around 30 retailers are already participating in the scheme, which is predicted to reduce delivery vehicle movements by approximately 70%

Strategic LGV Routes

A strategic M6 – Heysham lorry and van priority route should be considered for the district. This would give priority to goods traffic on existing road space, possibly sharing existing or extended bus lanes with buses and cycles if potential conflicts can be overcome.

The potential for widening of Caton Road and Morecambe Road should be investigated to accommodate priority goods routes. Lane flows and their direction might also be controlled by overhead “live lane” signage which could be either time-dependent or centrally controlled.

Strategic routing of vehicles would alleviate the impact of LGVs in populated areas. Introducing a lorry ban using weight restrictions on the A6 near to M6 Junction 33 would produce an “instant win” for the residential areas of Galgate, Scotforth and Greaves. This would force LGV traffic to use M6 J34 and then channel Morecambe and Heysham traffic via the A683.

We believe that this priority route should be considered alongside a review of the gyratory system, especially where Caton Road connects with Skerton and Greyhound bridges and continues along Morecambe Road.

Lancaster Gyratory System

One of the frustrating things people find with the local transport system is the Lancaster City gyratory system. Complaints are often voiced about having to travel in a wasteful, circuitous route around the city from whatever starting point you choose. The original concept was conceived in the 60’s and has had minor modifications over the period since then. In order to understand the complex nature of travel around the system a Comprehensive Travel Needs Survey is required. Without this information it is impossible to justify any changes to the traffic flow network.

TSLM has not pursued this important topic but calls on local transport authorities to complete a Comprehensive Travel Needs Survey and link this to a review of the gyratory system and strategic lorry priority routes.

Heysham Port

Lancashire’s Draft LTP2 says little about Heysham Port in terms of specific actions. However, they have promoted the Heysham M6 Link as an important feature of the Northern European Access Corridor.

TSLM contended that Heysham is in fact a relatively minor port. Just over 4m tonnes of cargo moved through it in 2003, only 9.2% of the Northwest total, and just 0.7% of tonnage moved through all UK ports. (Office of National Statistics 2004).

Peel Holdings have yet to announce their plans for the port, but previous owners Mersey Docks and Harbour had always focused their investment in the Liverpool docks complex.

Heysham Port employs about 100 people directly and supports other employment in associated service industries. In 1999 the port’s General Manager claimed that that port contributes about £4.5m to the local economy. The port operates 24 hours per day with ferries to Belfast, Dublin, Warren Point and also the Isle of Man.

The perception that vast amounts of port traffic congest local roads can be dispelled by simple mathematics.

1998 data suggests that 325,000 freight vehicles used Heysham on an annual basis.

Projected increases will add about 75,000 vehicle movements by about 2007 / 2008. (Lancaster Guardian 18th Mar 2005). Daily flow will then become a projected 1100 vehicles.

Using Lancashire County Council traffic flow projections for the “Do Minimum” scenario in 2010, this means that freight traffic from the Port of Heysham accounts for about 2.5% of the total traffic flow across the Skerton and Greyhound bridges.

Journey times between the port and Junction 34 are predicted to be 18.6 minutes without a link, and 9.4 with it. The time saving of 9.2 minutes for port traffic is insignificant for the Irish freight journey times beyond the Lancaster and Morecambe District transport boundary.