Jorrit Nijhuis (Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment)

1. The future of rush hour avoidance measuresLessons learned from 4 large projects in the Netherlands Jorrit Nijhuis (Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment) Matthijs Dicke-Ogenia (Goudappel Coffeng) Utrecht, ECOMM 22nd May 2015

2. Rush hour avoidance measures - characteristics • Encourage drivers to reduce trips in rush hour • Monetary reward • Reduced number of trips = trips in reference period – trips in rewarding period • GPS or camera as a registration technology

3. Rush hour projects in the Netherlands • The four largest projects • Brabant • Utrecht • Arnhem-Nijmegen • Rotterdam

4. A sustainable behaviour change!

5. Be careful with apps

6. Costs of rush hour avoidance measure • Positive social benefit/costs ratio however ……. • Significant costs for: • Monetary reward – €2.000.000 per year • Registration technology (should a participant be rewarded)

7. Service providers:reduction in coststechnology Government:reduction in costsreward

8. Service providers and government aim at cost effective technology

9. Alternatives to a monetary reward • Lottery • Travel information • Webshop • Use of psychology

10. Use of psychology • Major rewarding scheme (money, lottery, webshop, games, travel information) • More participants …… • …… that show more of the desired behaviour • …… for a longer period of time • …… resulting in a permanent behaviour change

11. Classical rush hour avoidance elements • Scale: corridor, region (city), national • Financial model: B2G, B2C, B2B • Effect: short (months), medium (years), long term (structural) • Selection and registration method: camera's, apps, on board unit (OBU) • Rewards: financial (money, webshops, lottery), social (feedback mechanisms, communities), moral (avoidance plans)

12. Criticism on rush hour avoidance projects • User: • Privacy (camera surveillance) • Injustice (non participants) • Government • Investment costs • Financial model (B2G) • Complex & long time to market • Limited competition service providers • Structural effects • Business • Difficult B2B/B2C business case

13. IMMA: Integrated Mobility Management Architecture • Developedwithin Program Optimizing Use • IMMA as a new approach: • Smart use of ITS: mobiles & apps • Integration of rush houravoidancewithother MM measures • How itworks: • Serviceproviders (apps) needtoqualifyfor IMMA • Apps have (historical) GPS trackings • Travellersreceivean “in app pop up” requestforparticition in rewardingscheme • Ifacceptedthe app is usedfor tracking, rewarding & user communication

14. IMMA Goals • Costreduction • Lesscomplicatedprocurement • More market competition • Lessstructuraluse of camera’s • Shorter time tomarket • Reduction of privacy risks • Lessstructuraluse of camera’s • Realisingstructuraleffects Source: project plan IMMA, 2015

15. IMMA Current proces • June 2015: product design specifications • End 2015: qualification proces serviceproviders • First pilots in 2016 with use of IMMA • 2016-2017: Objective baseline Recruitment Tracking Rewarding User Communication Enforcement Projects 2017

16. New business models for serviceproviders • B2G: • Rush hour avoidance projects • Road construction works • Programme Optimising Use • Other MM projects (cycling, public transport use, etc.) • Research (surveys, GPS data) • B2B: • Employers (MM in companies) • Loyalty programmes (marketing) • Data (user, travel & traffic info)

17. Questions & remarks?