1. Challenge the future Delft University of Technology Project Waalbrug Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen TIL5050 – Bernat Goni, Vikash Mohan, Arjen van Diepen, Tim van Leeuwen 30 March 2010 Meeting week 9

2. 2 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Outline 1. Criteria 2. Alternatives Cellphone Chairman: 06 25 132 993

3. 3 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria Main Criteria Secondary Criteria

4. 4 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria 1.1. Overview Value Main Criteria 1. Accessibility to the city center - 1.1 Generalized travel cost / kmTime - 1.2 Travel time reliability+/- Secondary Criteria 2. Environment - 2.1 Air Polution+/- - 2.2 Noise+/- 3. Traffic Safety+/- 4. Financial CostsEuro’s Criteria Overview

5. 5 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria 1.2. Main criterion

6. 6 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria 2. Environment - Air Quality - Noise 1.3. Secondary Criteria

7. 7 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria 2.1 Air Quality 1.3. Secondary Criteria Critical input Intensities Parking movements CityStreetX(m)Y(m)Intensity (veh/h) Light veh (%)Middle heavy veh (%) Heavy veh (%) Buses (%) Parking movements Speed type Road Type Tree- factor Distanc e to road 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

8. 8 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Measure points air quality 2.1. Air Quality - 2.1.1 G. Gavinweg+/- - 2.1.2 Canisiussingel+/- - 2.1.3 Oranjesingel+/- 1. Criteria 2.1 Air Quality 1.3. Secondary Criteria

9. 9 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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 E zv = 76,0 + 17,9lg(V zv /V 0 ) + 10lg(Q/v) zv + C wegdek,zv Emissiegetal zwaarvoertuig E mv = 73,2 + 19,0lg(V mv /V 0 ) + 10lg(Q/v) mv + C wegdek,mv Emissiegetal middelzwaar voertuig E lv = 69,4 + 27,6lg(V lv /V 0 ) + 10lg(Q/v) lv + C wegdek,lv Emissiegetal licht voertuig E = 10lg(10 Elv/10 + 10 Emv/10 + 10 Ezv/10 )Emissiegetal L Aeq = E + C Optrek + C reflectie – D afstand – D lucht – D bodem – D meteo Equivalent geluidsniveau Critical input Intensities Speed

10. 10 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria 2.2 Noise 1.3. Secondary Criteria Example of input table ParameterExplanationValue RDistance to houses HwegHeight of road HwObserving height BSoil factor V zv Speed heavy veh V mv Speed middle heavy veh V lv Speed light veh V 0 (V zv )Reference speed (zw)70 V 0 (V mv )Reference speed (mw)70 V 0 (V lv )Reference speed (lw)80 C wegdek,zv Not taken into account C wegdek,mv Not taken into account C wegdek,lv Not taken into account Judging based on ordinal scale (++/--) Noise should not exceed legal limits

11. 11 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Measure points noise 2.2. Noise - 2.2.1 Canisiussingel+/- - 2.2.2 Oranjesingel+/- 1. Criteria 2.2. Noise 1.3. Secondary Criteria

12. 12 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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) 3. Traffic Safety - 3.1 Accident Density+/- - 3.2 Number of Stops+/- - 3.3 % Left Turns+/-

13. 13 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria 4. Costs 1.3. Secondary Criteria

14. 14 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 1. Criteria 4. Costs 1.3. Secondary Criteria AlternativesInvestment*MaintenanceOperationRevenues 1 (Redesign Trajanusplein) X--- 2 (HOT-lanes) XXXX 3 4..n X represents costs in euro’s * For example construction (asphalt), VMS panels etc

15. 15 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 2. Alternatives Redesign Traianusplein HOT-lane Route Information System Parking Policy Public Transport Improvements

16. 16 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 17 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Alternatives Redesign Keizer Traianusplein Alternative solution Current situation

18. 18 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 19 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 20 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 21 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 22 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 23 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 24 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 25 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 26 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Alternatives - ?? Parking Policy

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

28. 28 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 29 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Solution direction: 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 Alternatives Parking Policy

30. 30 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 31 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 3. Fired Alternatives Reducing conflicts on the singels Ferry System (OV-system alternative)

32. 32 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen 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. 33 Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen Fired Alternatives 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) Extra left turn -/- Environ- mental impact New conflict