Project Waalbrug

1. Project Waalbrug Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Meeting week 9 TIL5050 – Bernat Goni, Vikash Mohan, Arjen van Diepen, Tim van Leeuwen 30 March 2010

2. Outline Criteria Alternatives Cellphone Chairman: 06 25 132 993

3. 1. Criteria • Main Criteria • Secondary Criteria

4. 1. Criteria 1.1. Overview Criteria Overview

5. 1. Criteria 1.2. Main criterion

6. 1. Criteria 2. Environment - Air Quality - Noise 1.3. Secondary Criteria

7. 1. Criteria 2.1 Air Quality 1.3. Secondary Criteria • Measure air quality as described in “Meet en rekenvoorschrift Luchtkwaliteit” • Area of research: Singels • CAR II Model for calculating concentration values for several components • Judging based on ordinal scale (++ / --) • Concentrations should not exceed legal limits • Example of input table • Critical input • Intensities • Parking movements

8. 1. Criteria 1.3. Secondary Criteria • 2.1 Air Quality Measure points air quality

9. 1. Criteria 2.2 Noise 1.3. Secondary Criteria • Measure Noise as described in “Meet en rekenvoorschrift Luchtkwaliteit” • Standaardrekenmethode I • Area of research: Singels • Example of calculation method Ezv = 76,0 + 17,9lg(Vzv/V0) + 10lg(Q/v)zv + Cwegdek,zv Emissiegetal zwaarvoertuig Emv = 73,2 + 19,0lg(Vmv/V0) + 10lg(Q/v)mv + Cwegdek,mv Emissiegetal middelzwaar voertuig Elv = 69,4 + 27,6lg(Vlv/V0) + 10lg(Q/v)lv + Cwegdek,lv Emissiegetal licht voertuig E = 10lg(10Elv/10 + 10Emv/10 +10Ezv/10) Emissiegetal LAeq = E + COptrek + Creflectie – Dafstand – Dlucht – Dbodem – Dmeteo Equivalent geluidsniveau • Critical input • Intensities • Speed

10. 1. Criteria 2.2 Noise 1.3. Secondary Criteria • Example of input table • Judging based on ordinal scale (++/--) • Noise should not exceed legal limits

11. 1. Criteria 1.3. Secondary Criteria • 2.2. Noise Measure points noise

12. 1. Criteria 3. Traffic Safety 1.3. Secondary Criteria • Measure Traffic Safety as Accident Density • Area of research: Waalbrug, Traianusplein, Singels • Graph Accident Density vs. Intensity (SWOV) • Other traffic safety indicators to be measured: • Number of stops and % left turns ‘Less traffic, same risk, less victims’ (Wegman 2004)

13. 1. Criteria 4. Costs 1.3. Secondary Criteria

14. 1. Criteria 4. Costs 1.3. Secondary Criteria X represents costs in euro’s * For example construction (asphalt), VMS panels etc

15. 2. Alternatives • Redesign Traianusplein • HOT-lane • Route Information System • Parking Policy • Public Transport Improvements

16. Alternatives Redesign Keizer Traianusplein • Keizer Traianusplein bottleneck in Waalbrug route to Nijmegen Center. (estimated capacity 1700 veh/h; comparison Waalbrug: 2500 veh/h) • Major flows are straight traffic to Singels and left turn to Nieuwe Ubbergseweg (direction Germany). Currently flows conflict which reduces capacity. • Idea • Facilitating a left turn to Nieuwe Ubbergseweg using a viaduct. This means at the same time lowering the lane for straight traffic. This reduces conflicts that the current (large) flow from the Waalbrug turning left (especially in evening peak) causes with other streams.

17. Alternatives Redesign Keizer Traianusplein Current situation Alternative solution

18. Alternatives Redesign Keizer Traianusplein • Accessibility • Increased capacity of lanes going straight to the Singels • Removal of first crossing by making viaduct • Reduction of crossing flows on second crossing because major flow • has been diverted • Thus: improved travel time on constant travel demand • Improved travel time for people direction Nieuwe Ubbergseweg. • Left turn has become shorter and faces less conflicts • Improved reliability of Keizer Traianusplein • Separation of flows and reduction of number of conflicts improves • robustness of the Keizer Traianusplein and thus the reliability

19. Alternatives Redesign Keizer Traianusplein • Environment • Noise • Increased intensities on the Singels will most likely result in more noise on the Singels. Thus this criteria will most likely score negative on this alternative. • Air quality • Due to increased intensities on the Singels (the Keizer Traianusplein allows for a larger flow going straight) air quality will probably be less than in the 0-situation. • Traffic safety • Traffic safety will improve because of separation of flows and reduction of conflicts. Also, remaining crossings will have smaller flows. Furthermore stops for straight traffic will be reduced

20. Alternatives High Occupancy Toll-Lane (HOT) Idea: Build two High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes (one per direction) in General James Gavinweg, the Waalbrug and Prins Mauritssingel. Those HOT lanes can be used by public transport vehicles (for free) and by car drivers who are willing to pay a toll. Target Group: • Car drivers with HOT account (who have a high value of time) • Users of the Waalsprinter and regular bus services

21. Alternatives High Occupancy Toll-Lane • Current section General James Gavinweg: • Current section of the Waalbrug: • Current section of the Prins Mauritssingel: • Future section General James Gavinweg • Future section Prins Mauritssingel:

22. Alternatives High Occupancy Toll-Lane (HOT) Expected effects: • Travel Time Savings: HOT lanes allow to travel at higher speeds than vehicles on congested general-purpose lanes. • Trip Time Reliability: Traffic volumes on HOT lanes are managed to ensure superior, consistent, and reliable travel times, particularly during peak travel periods. • Revenue Generation: revenues gained from the HOT fares Elasticity analysis to determine HOT fare: Maximum intensity on the HOT lanes = 0.8*1250 = 1000 veh/h/lane

23. Alternatives Route Information System Idea: • Build a route information system (VMS/DRIP) for helping the user to select routes that are more attractive to them. Target Group: • Car drivers wanting to go back and forth between the north and the western part of Nijmegen South (e.g. UMC St. Radboud)

24. Alternatives Route Information System Expected Effect: • Available road-capacity will be used more efficient. • 91% users chose fastest route (Lecture notes CT5804), via Stadsbrug is longer, but saves minutes in comparing with congested Waalbrug route Expected Effect on accessibility: • Lower intensity at the Waalbrug. • More reliable travel time on the Waalbrug • Reduction of expected travel time at trip level .

25. Alternatives Route Information System Intensity effects • Daily 10.000 users going to south, for 3.000 people the stadsbrug route could be attractive => reduction Waalbrug traffic with 10% Environment & Traffic Safety: • Same traffic, differently distributed over road-capacity • Network wide marginal impacts on traffic safety • Improvements in Noise & Air Quality because of lower intensities Costs • Building DRIP Panels: 500.000 euro • O&M Costs: RWS data supply

26. Alternatives - ?? Parking Policy

27. Alternatives Parking Policy Idea: Implement parking policy to avoid unnecessary movements of “parking clients’’ on the Singels (Sint Caniussingel). Target Group: • Car drivers visiting the city center

28. Areas with main functions: source: Parkeerbalans binnenstad Nijmegen 2006 1 = working (balance) 2 = working & visitors (parking supply > parking demand) 3 = working & visitors (parking supply < parking demand) 4 = visitors (Parking supply < parking demand; especially on shopping night) 5 = working & visitors (balance) 6 = working (parking supply > parking demand)

29. Solution direction: Alternatives Parking Policy • Improve parking fares in area 2 and attract Waalbrug users from area 4 to 2 • Divert visitors from parking in area 4 to area 2 (signs) Possible Effects: • Better accessibility of parking facilities in area 2 coming from the Waalbrug (lower travel costs) • Decrease of ‘Parking clients’ on the singels  Lower traffic intensities on Singels

30. Alternatives Improvements to make PT alternatives more attractive and incentive modal shift thus reducing car traffic on the Waalbrug for all origins can be: Waalsprinter (only usable by car owners); reduce waiting time by increasing frequency and a other improvement is to increase the comfort and reduce the fare of the Waalsprinter PT travel time can be improved by; O Waalsprong; increase frequency of bus (low waiting times) O Bemmel; increase frequency of bus O Elst; increase frequency of bus and for the train the access time O Arnhem South; increase frequency of bus (lower waiting times) and reduce the running time for bus. For the train improve access time to the station. This can be done by the realization of a P&R facility near the train station. Public Transport Improvements

31. 3. Fired Alternatives • Reducing conflicts on the singels • Ferry System (OV-system alternative)

32. Fired Alternatives Fast Passenger Ferry system Goal: • Give an alternative to cross the Waal (from the Waalsprong area) without using the current alternatives. Why we fired the alternative: • High access time ferry compared with Snelbinder bridge (used by cyclists) • Unattractive sailing route because of construction dike (dijkteruglegging)

33. Fired Alternatives New conflict -/- Environ-mental impact Extra left turn Reducing Conflicts on the singel Goal: • Improving flow on Singels by reducing conflicts and using capacity on Bijleveldsingel Why we fired the alternative: • By removing conflicts others are being created (marginal or no positive effect on accessibility) • Creating extra left turn (negative effect on traffic safety) • Negative environmental impact in urban area (Bijleveldsingel)