Project Waalbrug

Project Waalbrug Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Mid-term Presentation TIL5050 – Bernat Goni, Vikash Mohan, Arjen van Diepen, Tim van Leeuwen March 16th, 2010

Outline Research Questions Problem Analysis Functional Analysis & Requirements Solution Space Alternatives Planning

1. Research questions • Main research question • Research sub-questions

Research Questions Which viable solutions can be implemented to improve the transport accessibility of the city center of Nijmegen from the North in 2025? Main research questions

Research Questions a) How are the “city centre of Nijmegen” and the “North of the Waal” delimited? b) How is “transport accessibility” defined? c) What are the main issues limiting transport accessibility at present? d) Which time periods and network user classes are affected the most? e) Who are the problem owners and the main stakeholders and what are their main interests? f) According to which criteria will possible solutions be generated and evaluated? g) What solutions could be implemented to improve transport accessibility? h) What is the performance of each alternative solution? i) What advice can be given to the problem owner(s)? Research sub-questions

2. Problem Analysis • Definition of Transport Accessibility • Spatial delimitation • Car network Analysis • PT network Analysis • Stakeholder Analysis • Policy Analysis

Problem Analysis The concept of accessibility has been defined in many different ways. The most appropriate definition depends upon the intended application. Our definition is an adaptation of the definitions proposed by Morris et al. (1979) and Geurs & Van Wee (2004): “Accessibility is the ease* with which groups of individuals can reach a destination from a certain place and with a certain transport mode”. *Ease is expressed in terms of travel time/costs. Definition of Transport Accessibility

Problem Analysis City centre of Nijmegen Spatial delimitation

Problem Analysis North of the Waal Spatial delimitation

Problem Analysis Car network analysis • The traffic situation on the Waalbrug and the Singels will still be problematic in the future. • The new bridge (Stadsbrug) does not provide a convenient route for travelers from the north to the city center and Nijmegen South. • The Singels have an urban-road design but a regional function (access road).

Problem Analysis Traffic characteristics Highest intensities in peak hours (indicating home-work traffic) Main ODs: Waalsprong and Arnhem  Nijmegen City center and South High intensities in both directions Bottlenecks: Keizer Traianusplein and Singels. Conflicting flows: Left turn direction Germany in Traianusplein, and left turns in the Singels Also: Capacity of the Waalbrug is limited Car network Analysis (cont’d)

Problem Analysis Travel demand from the north to the city center: Current public transport share 10% Ambitious plans for the future - HOV-network of six lines include one tramline Growth in demand of 84% => pt-share 11,5% - Waalsprong 1200% growth - Arnhem South 51% growth - Spatial developing Potential growing areas: Waalsprong, Bemmel, Arnhem Center (based on share and total travelers) PT network Analysis

Problem Analysis Why are not more people using public transport to access the city center? Travellers issues choosing for public transport (research Moving 2007), applied to Nijmegen situation: Travel time - Egress time => whole city center reachable in max 5 min walking from a stop - Transfer time => all regional lines going through city center/Plein 1944 - Running time => dedicated infrastructure in congested areas (e.g. Waalbrug) - Waiting time => low frequencies in smaller residential areas, Waalsprinter off peak (each 20 minutes) Access time => less stops on HOV lines, access time is higher. Price: normal fares, Waalsprinter = free for P&R users. Image => Nijmegen North => 67% Satisfied (Buurtmonitor ’09) average Nijmegen 85% PT network Analysis (cont’d)

Problem Analysis Problem owner: Municipality of Nijmegen Stakeholder Analysis

Problem Analysis Stakeholder Analysis (cont’d) Power vs interest grid:

Problem Analysis CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Environmental groups versus Kamer van Koophandel and Entrepeneurs of the City Center The former are against more car traffic infrastructure and strive for more car reducing measures, whereas the latter claim that more infrastructure and other car oriented measures are necessary in order to increase the accessibility of the city center. The local government is situated somewhere in between those parties. Political parties PvdA, SP and GroenLinks are against physical infrastructural measures in the city center while CDA and VVD are willing to consider measures of that kind when proved these contribute to increase accessibility. Almost all political parties agree that parking space availability should increase, except for Groenlinks that does not mention it. Examples of conflicting measures include the possible affection of the city characteristics when new infrastructure is built and possible removal of nature and green in case of physical measures. Also, actors favoring bike and public transport conflict with business actors (KvK, city center entrepreneurs) who claim that bike and public transport alternatives only have marginal effect and that car accessibility should be the focus. Stakeholder Analysis (cont’d)

Problem Analysis Policy Analysis • Currently several measures have been proposed and are successful: - Waalsprinter - Smart Pricing • The current measures have had positive affects but in general the accessibility problem still remains (the positive effects are marginal). • Current measures are expensive and not suitable, and depend on funding from the Ministry (e.g. Smart Pricing). • Future measures include the Stadsbrug and the extension of the A50, but the problem on the Waalbrug will still remain, due to: a) the realization of a new residential area (Waalsprong); and b) autonomous growth.

3. Functional analysis & requirements • Criteria

Functional Analysis Criteria 1. MAIN CRITERION • 1.1: Accessibility to the city centre from the north

Functional Analysis 2. SECONDARY CRITERIA 2.1: Livability in the areas surrounding the arterial roads of the city centre Criteria

Functional Analysis 2. SECONDARY CRITERIA (cont’d) 2.2: Costs of implementing the alternatives Criteria

4. Solution Space • Major project choices

Solution Space Major project choices

5. Alternatives • Alternative 1 • Alternative 2 • Alternative 3 • Alternative 4 • Alternative 5

Alternatives Alternative 1: Route Guidance - Goal: Better use of capacity and to distribute traffic equal over available routes - Matrix signs on the routes to Nijmegen - Smartphone applications with traffic situation status include alternatives like Waalsprinter.

Alternatives Alternative 2: High Occupancy Toll-Lane (HOT) - Goal: Better use of capacity of the Waalbrug - Combines HOV and pricing strategies by allowing single occupancy vehicles to gain access to HOV lanes by paying a toll.

Alternatives Alternative 3: Fast Passenger Ferry system - Goal: give an alternative to cross the Waal without using the current alternatives - Focus is more on people who work in the city center area, also people who wants to visit the city center - Parking places to park your car and use the ferry to cross the Waal - No tariff (in peak hours)

Alternatives - Goal: Improving flow on Keizer Traianusplein - Improving flow on Traianusplein by reducing conflicts through a redesign - Facilitate left turn on viaduct - Remove conflict by lowering lanes for straight traffic Alternative 4: Redesign Keizer Traianusplein

Alternatives - Goal: Improving flow on Singels - Reduce conflicts on Singels by changing traffic situation and diverting flows - Reducing conflicts on two crossings (Prins Bernhardstraat and Berg en Dalseweg) - Diverting left turning traffic to Bijleveldsingel - Reduces number of traffic light phases and waiting time Alternative 5: Reducing conflicts on Singels

6. Planning • Project planning

Planning Coming weeks: Investigate more alternatives Elaborate on criteria and alternatives Score alternatives Draw conclusions Green-light meeting: Tuesday April 6th Project planning

Project Waalbrug