TIL5050 Project Waalbrug Bernat Goni (1560255) Vikash Mohan (1150391) Arjen van Diepen (1522620) Tim van Leeuwen (12961240) 2 March 2010

Research questions 1. MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION: Which viable solutions can be implemented to improve the transport accessibility of the city center of Nijmegen from the North in 2025? 2. RESEARCH SUB-QUESTIONS: How is “transport accessibility” defined? What are the main issues limiting transport accessibility at present? Who are the problem owner and the main stakeholders and what are their main interests? According to which criteria will possible solutions be generated and evaluated? What solutions could be implemented to improve transport accessibility? What is the performance of each alternative solution? What advice can be given to the problem owner?

Definition of accessibility The concept of accessibility has been defined in many different ways. The most appropriate definition depends upon the intended application. Our definition is based on 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 accessibility Geurs & Van Wee (2004)

Main issues limiting accessibility to the city centre from the north Most travelers use their private car. There is only one main car route (through the Waalbrug and Kaiser Traianusplein). The generalized travel costs for cars on that route are very high due to: 1) shortage of parking space in the city centre; and 2) congestion in the Waalbrug and the singels. The main reason for congestion is that the singels are designed as local urban roads but they function as regional access roads, so the I/C ratio is very high. The generalized travel costs of public transport vary depending on frequencies, number of transfers, access times and egress times. Besides car-captive travelers cannot use the existing public transport services. Conflicts of interests amongst stakeholders require solutions to make trade-offs between conflicting policy objectives (e.g. increase car accessibility versus reduce traffic intensities). Solution measures that have been implemented have only had marginal effects on accessibility.

Problem owner Municipality of Nijmegen

Stakeholder analysis Power-interest grid

Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder-issue interrelationship diagram

Stakeholder analysis Conflicting interests 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.

Criteria to generate / evaluate solutions 1. MAIN CRITERIUM: 1.1: Accessibility to the city centre from the north 2. SECONDARY CRITERIA: 2.1: Livability in the areas surrounding the arterial roads of the city centre 2.2: Costs of implementing the alternatives

Criteria to generate / evaluate solutions 1.1: Accessibility to the city centre from the north Criteria Measure Measure unit Travel time Travel time from northern origins to destinations in the city center Minutes Travel costs Travel costs from northern origins to destinations in the city center Euros Travel time unreliability Variance of travel times

Criteria to generate / evaluate solutions 2.1: Livability in the areas surrounding the arterial roads (city centre) Criteria Measure Measure unit Air quality Intensity Vehicles per hour Density Vehicles per kilometer Percentage of heavy vehicles % Noise Average speed Kilometers per hour Traffic safety Infrastructure design attributes # Crossings with separation of flows Number of conflicts on intersections

Criteria to generate / evaluate solutions 2.2: Costs of implementing the alternatives Criteria Measure Measure unit Investment costs Million euro Operation & Maintenance costs Euro / year

… and what next? Define criteria more in detail Get a workable transport model and relevant data (OD matrix, network, local traffic counts) Perform a more detailed network analysis, especially at the micro level. Define the solution space and generate alternatives.