Improving car accessibility to Nijmegen center towards 2025

1. Improving car accessibility to Nijmegen center towards 2025 Research of viable solutions Arjen van Diepen Tim van Leeuwen Bernat Goñi Ros Vikash Mohan 18 May 2010

2. Outline • What problem do we want to solve? • Problem analysis • How do we want to solve the problem? • Description of the measures • Performance evaluation • Combination of measures • Conclusions • Recommendations

3. What problem do we want to solve? • The route that gives access to Nijmegen from the north of the river Waal is severely congested during peak hours, which reduces accessibility to the city center.

4. Problem analysis • Stakeholders and issues:

5. Problem analysis • A new bridge to cross the river (Stadsbrug) is going to be built in 2013. The Stadsbrug will be used by an important share of the traffic crossing the Waal in the future (45,000 vehicles/day).

6. Problem analysis • However, the severity of congestion on the Waalbrug route is expected to stay high because of the following reasons: • The Waalbrug route will remain the most attractive route to travel between the northern zones and Nijmegen centre, south and east • New residential development in the Waalsprong (+20.000 inhabitants in 2020) • Demand autonomous growth

7. Problem analysis • The capacity of the Waalbrug route is not sufficient to accommodate the predicted traffic demand: • The Keizer Traianusplein is the main bottleneck • The capacity of the Waalbrug is almost fully used • The capacity of the Singels is reduced by the high number of conflicts between traffic flows

9. How do we want to solve the problem? • Reducing the I/C ratios along the Waalbrug route by: • Increasing the capacity of certain road stretches along the route • Measure 1: Infrastructural improvements • Reducing traffic intensities on the route • Measure 2: Improvement of the Waalsprinter service • Measure 3: Parking policy • Constraints: • Livability (air quality, noise, traffic safety) • Costs (investment, O&M)

10. Measure 1: Infrastructure Objectives: • Reduce conflicts on Keizer Traianusplein • Increase capacity on the Waalbrug

11. Measure 1: Infrastructure Description: • Left turn on K. Traianusplein (direction Ubbergseweg) facilitated by lowering the lanes going straight (viaduct) • Extra lane on the Waalbrug in northern direction using the current cycle path. Lane will be dedicated for the first exit after the Waalbrug (direction Waalsprong/Bemmel) • This exit is estimated to be used by 700 veh/h in the evening peak. • In southern direction, the current bus lane will be opened to car drivers going to the city center. • This lane will be used by about 350 veh/hour in the evening peak.

13. Public transport network Measure 2: P&R and Waalsprinter Waalsprinter

14. Measure 2: P&R and Waalsprinter Background: • All northern zones have a public transport connection to Nijmegen center, but most of them are not competitive with car routes. • Routes using car and Waalsprinter are almost the only routes including use of public transport that are competitive with car routes. • Improving the Waalsprinter service has a high potential of influencing mode choice. The travel time elements that could be improved are: • Penalty for transferring from private vehicle to transit • Bus running time in the Waalbrug in direction north

15. Measure 2: P&R and Waalsprinter Objectives: • Make routes using transit services to cross the river a more attractive option for travelers, in order to influence their mode choice behavior and reduce the amount of cars on the Waalbrug route.

16. Measure 2: P&R and Waalsprinter Description: • Making the side lane of the Waalbrug in direction north a dedicated bus lane for the Waalsprinter  bus running time • Making several improvements in the Park & Ride facility to offer a higher level of security and comfort  transfer penalty • Security: • Higher fences • Transfer comfort: • Covered walking paths • Escalators • Waiting room: comfortable seats, vending machines, TV set, real-time information about bus departure times • P&R entry points (highway): real-time information about parking availability and bus departure times

17. Measure 2: P&R and Waalsprinter

18. Measure 3: Parking policy Background: • No attractive long-stay parking alternative for people from North and East on their side of the city center. • No attractive short-stay parking alternative for people from the South on their side of the city center. • Signs  Not all parking facilities in PRIS + the signs are not clear in directing people to parking facilities. • This results in conflicts on the Singels (crossings, left turns) and high intensities.

19. Measure 3: Parking policy Objectives: • Direct car users coming from the northern zones and Nijmegen east to parking spaces on the northeast side of the city center. • Direct car users coming from Nijmegen south to parking spaces on the southern side of the city center.

20. Measure 3: Parking policy Description: • Changes in policy and parking information system: • Level the day card tariffs of the parking facilities located in the northeast and south of the city center. • Facilitate short stay parking in the south: hourly based parking on Wedren/Julianaplein • Include Wedren/Julianaplein in dynamic parking information system and rename to Centrum Zuid • New information panels on Prins Bernhardstraat directing people to Wedren/Julianaplein • New information panels before Waalbrug and Nieuwe Ubbergseweg to direct people to parking facilities in the northeast of the city center.

22. Performance evaluation Opposing parties Environmentalists Entrepreneurs -

23. Combination of measures

24. Timeline

25. Conclusions • What problem do we want to solve? The route that gives access to Nijmegen from the north of the river Waal is severely congested during peak hours, which reduces accessibility to the city center. • How do we want to solve the problem? Reducing the I/C ratios along the Waalbrug route by increasing the capacity of certain road stretches along the route and by reducing traffic intensities on the route; solution constraints are livability and costs. • Three measures are found viable: • Measure 1: An infrastructural measure that includes a redesign of the Keizer Traianusplein and the implementation of extra lanes on the Waalbrug to create more capacity. • Measure 2: A measure consisting of Waalsprinter improvements including the redesign of the P&R to increase safety and transfer comfort and also a bus dedicated lane on the Waalbrug in direction north. • Measure 3: A new parking policy containing a renewed parking information system, signs and pricing policy. • Evaluation: Measure 1 (infrastructure) is the one that improves accessibility the most. However, it also has some disadvantages: • The investment and O&M costs are relatively high • Some main stakeholders (such as the environmental groups) might strongly oppose its implementation.

26. Recommendations • 1. Implement the three proposed measures, after a careful evaluation of second order effects. • 2. Analyze the traffic situation and evaluate the effects of the proposed measures using a more accurate transportation model. • 3. Define with more detail the structural design aspects of the proposed measures. • 4. Costs associated to the proposed measures should be determined more in depth, possibly using a cost-benefit analysis approach. • 5. Engage the more powerful stakeholders in the design and implementation phases of these measures.

27. Thank you! • Arjen van Diepen • Tim van Leeuwen • Bernat Goñi Ros • Vikash Mohan

28. Solution space