project waalbrug

Challenge the future

DelftUniversity ofTechnology

Project WaalbrugImproving transport accessibility in Nijmegen

TIL5050 – Bernat Goni, Vikash Mohan, Arjen van Diepen, Tim van Leeuwen30 March 2010

Meeting week 9

2Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen

Outline

1. Criteria2. Alternatives

Cellphone Chairman: 06 25 132 993


1.Criteria

• Main Criteria• Secondary Criteria


1. Criteria1.1. Overview

Value

Main Criteria1. Accessibility to the city center- 1.1 Generalized travel cost / km Time- 1.2 Travel time reliability +/-Secondary Criteria2. Environment- 2.1 Air Polution +/-- 2.2 Noise +/-3. Traffic Safety +/- 4. Financial Costs Euro’s

Criteria Overview


1. Criteria1.2. Main criterion1: Accessibility to the city centre from the north

• Because improving accessibility is the main objective of our research project, it is also selected as the main criterion.

• Accessibility as a criterion is divided into two sub-criteria: - Generalized travel costs- Travel time reliability

• We defined transport accessibility as “the ease with which groups of individuals can reach a destination from a certain place and with a certain transport mode”. We choose to express “ease”in terms of generalized travel costs (min/km), which can be quantified as follows:

Gen. travel costs (min/km) = [Weighted travel time + VOT*Travel costs] / trip length

• Travel time reliability is usually expressed in terms of variation of travel times, but in our research we are only going to make qualitative estimations of reliability (+/-).


1. Criteria

• 2. Environment

- Air Quality

- Noise

1.3. Secondary Criteria


1. Criteria

• 2.1 Air Quality


• Critical input• Intensities • Parking movements

City

Street X(m) Y(m) Intensity(veh/h)

Light veh (%) Middleheavy veh (%)

Heavy veh (%)

Buses (%)

Parking movements

Speed type

Road Type

Tree-factor

Distanceto 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


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. Criteria

• 2.2 Noise


• Measure Noise as described in “Meet en rekenvoorschrift Luchtkwaliteit”• Standaardrekenmethode I

• Area of research: Singels• Example of calculation methodEzv = 76,0 + 17,9lg(Vzv/V0) + 10lg(Q/v)zv + Cwegdek,zv Emissiegetal zwaarvoertuigEmv = 73,2 + 19,0lg(Vmv/V0) + 10lg(Q/v)mv + Cwegdek,mv Emissiegetal middelzwaar voertuigElv = 69,4 + 27,6lg(Vlv/V0) + 10lg(Q/v)lv + Cwegdek,lv Emissiegetal licht voertuigE = 10lg(10Elv/10 + 10Emv/10 + 10Ezv/10) EmissiegetalLAeq = E + COptrek + Creflectie – Dafstand – Dlucht – Dbodem – Dmeteo Equivalent geluidsniveau

• Critical input• Intensities • Speed


1. Criteria

• 2.2 Noise


• Example of input tableParameter Explanation ValueR Distance to housesHweg Height of roadHw Observing heightB Soil factorVzv Speed heavy vehVmv Speed middle heavy

vehVlv Speed light vehV0 (Vzv) Reference speed (zw) 70V0 (Vmv) Reference speed (mw) 70V0 (Vlv) Reference speed (lw) 80Cwegdek,zv Not taken into accountCwegdek,mv Not taken into accountCwegdek,lv Not taken into account

• Judging based on ordinal scale (++/--)• Noise should not exceed legal limits


Measure points noise

2.2. Noise- 2.2.1 Canisiussingel

+/-

- 2.2.2 Oranjesingel

+/-

1. Criteria

• 2.2. Noise



1. Criteria

• 3. Traffic Safety


•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 +/-


1. Criteria

• 4. Costs


Euro / yearOperation & Maintenance costsOperation & Maintenance costs

Million euroInvestment costsInvestment costs

Measure unitMeasureSub-criteria

Euro / yearOperation & Maintenance costsOperation & Maintenance costs

Million euroInvestment costsInvestment costs

Measure unitMeasureSub-criteria


1. Criteria

• 4. Costs


Alternatives Investment* Maintenance Operation Revenues

1 (Redesign

Trajanusplein)

X - - -

2 (HOT-lanes) X X X X

3

4

..n

X represents costs in euro’s

* For example construction (asphalt), VMS panels etc


2.Alternatives

• Redesign Traianusplein• HOT-lane

• Route Information System

• Parking Policy• Public Transport Improvements


AlternativesRedesign 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.



Alternative solutionCurrent situation



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



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


AlternativesHigh 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


AlternativesHigh Occupancy Toll-Lane

HOT lanes

1.9 km / direction

Closed ramps

HOT lanes

1.9 km / direction

Closed ramps

• 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:


AlternativesHigh 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 faresElasticity analysis to determine HOT fare:HOT lane length (km) 1,9HOT lane average speed in rush hour (km/h) 50General-purpose lane average speed in rush hour (km/h) 20

HOT lane average travel time in rush hour (min) 2,3General-purpose lane average travel time in rush hour (km/h) 5,7

VOT (euro/h) 12Maximum toll fare 0,68

Maximum intensity on the HOT lanes = 0.8*1250 = 1000 veh/h/lane


AlternativesRoute 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)

DRIP Panel

DRIP Panel

Waalbrugroute

Stadsbrugroute

Ring/Stadsbrug route



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

.



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


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

P3 (300)P5 (350)

P6 (300)

P2 (350)

P8 (70)

P10 (26)

P14 (58)

P9 (58)

P7 (40)P11 (50)

P12 (50)

(650)

P1 (600)

AlternativesParking Policy


• 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)


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

AlternativesParking Policy


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 busO 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


3.Fired Alternatives

• Reducing conflicts on the singels• Ferry System (OV-system alternative)


Fired AlternativesFast 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)


Fired AlternativesReducing Conflicts on the singel

Goal: • Improving flow on Singels by reducing conflicts and using capacity on

BijleveldsingelWhy 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

project waalbrug

Documents