Upload
nowles
View
28
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Challenge the future
DelftUniversity ofTechnology
Project WaalbrugImproving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
TIL5050 – Bernat Goni, Vikash Mohan, Arjen van Diepen, Tim van LeeuwenMarch 16th, 2010
Mid-term Presentation
2Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Outline
1. Research Questions2. Problem Analysis3. Functional Analysis & Requirements4. Solution Space5. Alternatives6. Planning
3Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
1.Research questions
• Main research question
• Research sub-questions
4Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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
5Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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
6Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
2.Problem Analysis
• PT network Analysis
• Stakeholder Analysis
• Policy Analysis
• Definition of Transport Accessibility
• Spatial delimitation
• Car network Analysis
7Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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
8Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Problem Analysis
City centre of Nijmegen
Spatial delimitation
North
CentreCentre
9Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Problem Analysis
North of the Waal
Spatial delimitation
North
10Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Problem 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).
Car network analysis
11Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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)
12Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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
13Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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)
14Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Problem Analysis
Problem owner:
• Municipality of Nijmegen
Stakeholder Analysis
15Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Problem AnalysisStakeholder Analysis (cont’d)
Power vs interest grid:
16Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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 partiesPvdA, 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)
17Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Problem 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.
Policy Analysis
18Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
3.Functional analysis & requirements
•Criteria
19Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Functional Analysis
1. MAIN CRITERION
• 1.1: Accessibility to the city centre from the north
Criteria
MinutesVariance of travel timesTravel time unreliability
EurosTravel costs from northern origins to destinations in the city center
Travel costs
MinutesTravel time from northern origins to destinations in the city center
Travel time
Measure unitMeasureCriteria
MinutesVariance of travel timesTravel time unreliability
EurosTravel costs from northern origins to destinations in the city center
Travel costs
MinutesTravel time from northern origins to destinations in the city center
Travel time
Measure unitMeasureCriteria
20Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Functional Analysis
2. SECONDARY CRITERIA
• 2.1: Livability in the areas surrounding the arterial roads of the city centre
Criteria
Number of conflicts on intersections
# Crossings with separation of flows
Infrastructure design attributesTraffic safety
Kilometers per hour Average speedNoise
% Percentage of heavy vehicles
Vehicles per kilometer Density
Vehicles per hour IntensityAir quality
Measure unitMeasureCriteria
Number of conflicts on intersections
# Crossings with separation of flows
Infrastructure design attributesTraffic safety
Kilometers per hour Average speedNoise
% Percentage of heavy vehicles
Vehicles per kilometer Density
Vehicles per hour IntensityAir quality
Measure unitMeasureCriteria
21Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Functional Analysis
2. SECONDARY CRITERIA (cont’d)
• 2.2: Costs of implementing the alternatives
Criteria
Euro / yearOperation & Maintenance costsOperation & Maintenance costs
Million euroInvestment costsInvestment costs
Measure unitMeasureCriteria
Euro / yearOperation & Maintenance costsOperation & Maintenance costs
Million euroInvestment costsInvestment costs
Measure unitMeasureCriteria
22Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
4.Solution Space
•Major project choices
23Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Solution SpaceMajor project choices Improve accessibility of
Nijmegen City center
Reducing car Intensity on
current route
Increasing capacity on
current route
Public Transport Policy Infrastructure
Ferry System
HOV Lanes
Improve Image
Increase PT frequencies to Waalsprong
Improve PT Routes to Waalsprong
Improve Waalsprinter
Service
Road Pricing on Waalbrug
Traffic Management
Route Guidance system
Dynamic speed management
Green waves / Improve traffic light
configuration
Regulate Parking Fees
Reduce PT fares
Seperation of flows (tunnels/bridges)
Redesign Keizer Traianusplein
Reduce conflicts on Singels
Widening Waalbrug
New parking facilities
Extra Waal crossing
Tunneling traffic on Singels
Redesign of Keizer
TraianuspleinFerry System HoT Lanes
Reduce conflicts on Singels
Current selected realistic alternatives / Preliminary sketches
Route guidance
24Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
5.Alternatives
•Alternative 1
•Alternative 2
•Alternative 3
•Alternative 4
•Alternative 5
25Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Alternatives
- 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.
Alternative 1: Route Guidance
26Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Alternatives
- 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.
Alternative 2: High Occupancy Toll-Lane (HOT)
27Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Alternatives
- 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)
Alternative 3: Fast Passenger Ferry system
28Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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
29Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
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
30Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
6.Planning
• Project planning
31Improving transport accessibility in Nijmegen
Planning
Coming weeks:
• Investigate more alternatives • Elaborate on criteria and alternatives• Score alternatives• Draw conclusions
Green-light meeting: Tuesday April 6th
Project planning