Tag Archives: transport

Bailrigg Garden Village Update

Lancashire County Council has just opened an official consultation on remodelling Junction 33 of the M6 and creating a link road to enable drivers to by-pass Galgate on their way to and from campus and the proposed Bailrigg Garden Village. Simultaneously, they’re consulting on a Movement and Public Realm Strategy for Lancaster City Centre, asking what should be done about the one-way system. City residents have received a letter and a glossy Transforming Lancaster Travel newsletter (that promises to be but the first of many issues). The deadline for responses is 6 December 2020 and you can find the documents at:

https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/Transforming-Lancaster-Travel/

For the Galgate by-pass, there’s a short engineering options document and a very long environmental options document.

The engineers note that: The development of the South Lancaster Strategic Growth Area [i.e. building the Bailrigg Garden Village on Burrow Heights with 3,500 homes] will depend upon providing new infrastructure including the re-configuration of Junction 33 (J33) of the M6. According to the environmental options document, the scheme’s objectives are to improve Junction 33, create a link to the Bailrigg Garden Village and improve air quality in Galgate. The University is mentioned only in passing, in the environmental options document, which notes that: As the expansion of Lancaster University and Bailrigg Garden Village begin to take effect, the options for travel along the A6 highway corridor will become restricted as more demand is placed on the existing road network.

Residents are presented with six route options.

There are two Eastern Routes, linking J33 with Hazelrigg Lane to the south of campus, via routes to the east of the M6. There are a few challenges: Eastern 1 involves severing Stoney Lane in Galgate and Eastern 2 involves removing Hampson Farm near Galgate. There are two Central Routes, also linking J33 with Hazelrigg Lane, but this time heading parallel to the M6 and just to the west of it. Central 2 offers an additional link to Ashton Road but is otherwise the same as Central 1. Finally there are two Western Routes, both heading north west from J33 (Western 1) or a point slightly north of J33 (Western 2), crossing the Lancaster Canal on a new bridge and ending up in Burrow Heights.

All six routes involve continuing Hazelrigg Lane to the west at its junction with the A6, heading under the West Coast Main Line and joining Burrow Road, to give access between the A6 and the Bailrigg Garden Village. The cutting for the underbridge would be 2.4m below the level of the nearby Ou Beck and, consequently, the drainage of this area would need to be by pump. There is very little detail on the environmental impact of effectively turning the A6-Hazelrigg Lane junction into a giant crossroads. Residents of Leach House Lane, located just to the west of the existing junction, are unlikely to be happy.

The engineers strongly prefer Central 1 as it’s the cheapest route, it doesn’t involve crossing the Lancaster Canal and the drainage is superior.

The environmental report prefers Western 1 and Western 2 from a noise reduction point of view, but opts for Central 1 from a traffic flow reduction point of view: Central 1 is the only route option achieving a reduction of flow in the A6 through Galgate in both directions, in all peak periods and years modelled. The Central 2 option might actually increase traffic flow due to cars cutting across between the A6 and Ashton Road.

The simultaneous consultation on the Lancaster one-way system has a prettily designed options document offering eight future visions that are, roughly: do nothing; return the loop to two-way traffic; keep the loop but make one lane for buses and cycles only; two-way to the west, buses and cycles only to the east; two-way to the east, buses and cycles to the west; no through city centre traffic; no through city centre traffic during the day; and a £12 congestion charge. There is a distinct lack of costings for any of the options, but the congestion charge is appraised as the greenest choice.

Following the consultation, Lancashire County Council’s Cabinet will make its final decision on the options in February 2021. This doesn’t seem like a lot of time to analyse the responses, but of course, they may want to get their decision over with before the whole council is up for re-election in May.

BUS, LIGHTS – ACTION

The recent hold-ups on the A6 caused by the roadworks opposite the Health Innovation Campus building site seems to have altered Stagecoach drivers’ behaviour. Previously, the buses as they left the University would take the outside lane on that passage of road that runs parallel with University, letting cars on the inside lane gently filter over. Whilst the temporary lights have been in operation buses have invariably taken the inside lane and proceeded to hurtle towards the lights at great speed. While some may appreciate the early holiday experience of subsequent blaring horns and squealing tyres, most passengers looked perplexed. Your correspondent did wonder how the much heralded driverless buses would react faced with such an obstacle and presumably an in-built programmed schedule. It also made your correspondent speculate (some of the jams at the lights were quite lengthy) how the new driverless cars would cope navigating the highways and byways of Lancaster. On any journey around the city you encounter cars parked on one or both sides of the road. Negotiating the subsequent oncoming traffic then involves the ritual of flashing headlights and waving of hands followed by the salute signifying ‘thank you’. Your correspondent had visions of Lancaster being gridlocked as autonomous vehicles struggled to cope with the etiquette of ‘giving way’. Not a nice thought as you trundle home from work.

BUS EVACUATION

On April 29, 1975, Operation Frequent Wind saw the evacuation of those Americans who remained is Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War. It was the biggest helicopter lift of its kind in history — an 18-hour operation that carried 1,373 Americans and 5,595 Vietnamese to safety (or to escape the people’s justice, depending on your point of view).

Let’s talk about Roses weekend, and the associated difficulties getting to and from campus.

For those members of staff who use public transport, leaving campus last Friday was a fraught affair. Roses weekend necessitated (for whatever reason) the closure of Bigforth Drive, which meant that number 2 buses would not be running from the underpass. There was no indication as to where the buses WOULD run from (if at all), and no details of when the last bus would be setting off.

What to do? Your intrepid correspondent knew that such an exit would be complicated by the hold-ups on the A6 caused by the roadworks opposite the Health Innovation Campus building site. Should he leave shortly after arriving to avoid being trapped on Campus over the weekend? Or should he risk carrying on shredding confidential documents and deleting incriminating emails until the very last minute and be on that last bus leaving the University?

Instead of Jolly Green Giants, as the choppers out of Saigon were known, Stagecoach’s Big Red Double Deckers were our means of exodus. Travellers weren’t sure that Stagecoach staff would not be deployed, as U.S. Marines had been to smash the fingers of desperate Vietnamese trying to make it over the wall of the Embassy to safety, to restrict University staff trying to make it onto the overcrowded last bus.

When your correspondent managed to board one of the double-deckers, he found himself surrounded by evacuees nervously fingering their bags and frantically texting loved ones. As the bus left the underpass, thousands of people could be seen moving towards the road, as marshals (or marines – it was difficult to tell in the moment) closed in with barriers.

A few days later, news reached the subtext warehouse of further calamity as innocent visitors, having thought they were just ‘getting the number 2 to campus’, found themselves unceremoniously dumped outside Cartmel and told the bus wouldn’t be travelling any further.

subtext would like to hear any accounts from travellers caught in the thick of the operation. For this correspondent it was a close thing – something that could have been avoided by actually publishing the time of departure.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?

Your travel correspondent was unfortunate to be travelling up to work last week (8th February) when the bus broke down. Distinct smell of burning as the bus croaked its last at St. Martin’s bus stop. The driver ushered everyone off and folk milled around wondering what to do. It was actually a nice warm day so for your correspondent the journey was completed on foot – a very pleasant stroll along the meandering cycleway. However lighting struck twice and this week (13th February) another journey, another breakdown and an altogether different outcome. It was pouring with rain so the dis-embarked passengers stood under the shelter and umbrellas to await the next bus. It was not long in coming but of course it was already quite full – the driver of the newly arrived bus was very calm and packed us all on as best he could. Lots of steam emanating from soaked passengers but everyone was jolly nice to one another and we all poured out at the underpass and went on our various ways. See, not all travel stories end badly!

VALUED MEMBERS OF STAFF

In the last edition of subtext we reported on the problems of staff on termly contracts and their inability to get a staff bus pass. subtext has learnt of similar problems concerning hourly paid teaching staff who drive to work, and although we have historically avoided publishing stories about parking, we felt this one needed some further discussion on the grounds that a group of staff who are already marginalised and on insecure contracts were being treated unfairly.

Teaching staff attending the security building to renew their staff parking permit for the academic year were somewhat shocked to be told that unlike last year, they are no longer eligible for a staff permit. No prior warning, no correspondence informing them of this change in policy. Despite offering to pay the same amount as they had paid last year – and perhaps more importantly, the same amount as other staff still pay (!) – they were told that they are not eligible for a staff permit and would have to park ‘at the bottom end of the campus’.

The fact Lancaster University is situated on a hill is coincidental but this is highly symbolic; those ‘at the top’ (i.e. ‘proper’ staff) were deemed to be worthier in that they are given the ‘right’ to park in a more convenient location, over those ‘at the bottom’. For those staff, the issue with parking ‘at the bottom’ is not related to laziness but is more about feelings of inequality and the apparent power imbalance.

Why is it that these staff are no longer eligible? Is it because they are not ‘full-time’ members of staff. No. So it must be because they are ‘part-time’ members of staff. Well, no. Apparently the explanation given is that due to a lack of parking and over-subscription for permits, a review (which was not communicated to those concerned) had concluded that restrictions needed to be made and teaching staff who are also undertaking a PhD were the group to be targeted for cut backs. Staff-students have been discriminated against over both full-time and part-time staff who are not studying alongside their teaching. Essential teaching staff are vital for our Part I delivery and are apparently valued members of the research community when we tell stories during our strategic reviews and in our REF narratives. Welcome to the inclusive academic community.

Oh, and for those members of staff (regardless of status) who don’t have a permit at all, it seems there has been another price hike. The car park by the tennis courts has tripled in price from £1 per day to £3 per day. Thus endeth our gripe about parking.