Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 1
Frontpage
Project Waalbrug
bla
Improving transport
accessibility to
Nijmegen center
DRAFT REPORT
Delft, April 19th
2010
Arjen van Diepen (1522620)
Bernat Goni Ros (1560255)
Vikash Mohan (1150391)
Tim van Leeuwen (1296124)
Delft University of Technology
MSc Transport, Infrastructure & Logistics
TIL5050 – Interdisciplinairy Project
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 I
Report of the Interdisciplinary Project course (TIL5050), part of the Transport, Infrastructure and
Logistics (TIL) Masters Programme at Delft University of Technology. Faculties of Technology,
Policy and Management, Civil Engineering and Geosciences and Mechanical, Maritime and
Materials Engineering.
Supervised by: Ir. M.W. Ludema [email protected]
Dr. ir. R. van Nes [email protected]
2010, Technische Universiteit Delft, PO BOX 5, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 II
I Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 PROJECT AIM & METHODOLOGY 2
2.1 OBJECTIVES 2 2.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 2
2.3 SCOPE 3
2.4 PROCESS OVERVIEW 4
3 ANALYSIS 6
3.1 DEFINITION OF ACCESSIBILITY 6
3.2 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS 9
3.3 POLICY ANALYSIS 16
3.4 ROAD NETWORK ANALYSIS 25
3.5 PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK ANALYSIS 42 3.6 PROBLEM STATEMENT 54
4 CRITERIA 55
4.1 MAIN CRITERION 55
4.2 SECONDARY CRITERIA 58
5 SOLUTION SPACE 68
5.1 SOLUTION DIRECTIONS 68
5.2 GENERATION OF MEASURES 69
5.3 SELECTION OF MEASURES 71
6 MEASURES 75
6.1 INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURE 75 6.2 IMPROVEMENT OF THE WAALSPRINTER SERVICE 85
6.3 PARKING POLICY MEASURE 93
7 EVALUATION OF MEASURES 101
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 III
7.1 PRIMARY CRITERIA 101
7.2 SECONDARY CRITERIA 101
8 COMBINATION OF MEASURES 103
8.1 COMBINATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE & WAALSPRINTER 103
8.2 COMBINATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE & PARKING 104
8.3 COMBINATION OF WAALSPRINTER & PARKING 105 8.4 COMBINATION OF ALL THE MEASURES 105
9 STAKEHOLDERS’ POSITION 107
10 CONCLUSIONS 110
11 RECOMMENDATIONS 112
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 1
1 Introduction In Nijmegen, accessibility is under pressure and despite the financial crisis it is expected
that the demand will continue to grow. To counter those problems, several measures
have been implemented around Nijmegen. Examples include the Stadsbrug, the
widening of the A50, Regiorail and HOV (High Quality Public Transport). However,
Nijmegen has to prepare for issues that come up in the future after realization of
current plans. Taken and planned measures only have limited effect and due to
developments and autonomous growth, the load on the car network will remain high.
Especially on the current main access route over the Waalbrug congestion occurs daily.
This has been a point of discussion for many years and it is expected that the situation
remains problematic in the coming years.
Goal of this report is to present viable measures which can be implemented to improve
the car transport accessibility of the city center of Nijmegen from the North (route using
the Waalbrug) towards 2025. To get more inside about the current and possible future
problems, several analyses will carried out. This includes a network analysis to get a
better view of the traffic flows that enter and leave Nijmegen daily. Also, others like a
policy analysis and stakeholder analysis will be carried out to gain insight in the decision
making in Nijmegen and the measures that have been implemented or planned. And the
stakeholders related and their interests. Motivation to do this research project originally
comes from the course TIL5050, which is an interdisciplinary project, from the M.Sc. TIL
at TU Delft.
In chapter 2 the aim of this project and main research question and the sub-research
questions are described. In chapter 3 the problem has been analyzed by doing several
analyses. According to the results of these analyses in chapter 4 the criteria based on
the main interests of the important stakeholders are described. Chapter 5 describes the
outcome of the solution space and more elaboration on solution directions. Also the
process and final selection of alternatives is described in this chapter. In chapter 6 the
selected measures of the previous chapter are described with their effects. Chapter 7
elaborates on the evaluation of these measures. Chapter 8 presents the effects of
combining these measures, and chapter 9 describes the stakeholder’s positions with
regard to these measures. Finally, in chapter 10 the conclusions of this research will be
presented, and in chapter 11 a set of recommendations are given to the problem owner.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 2
2 Project aim & methodology In this chapter, the objectives of the project are presented. Next, the main research
question is defined; together with some more detailed research sub-questions giving
more structure to the main question. The design boundaries are determined by the
research scope, which is presented at the end of this chapter.
2.1 Objectives The main objectives of this research project are the following:
• Analyze the current and future levels of accessibility of the city center using the Waalbrug route.
• Analyze the arenas and stakeholders that are related to the issue of accessibility to the city center.
• Design feasible solutions to improve the accessibility to the city center using the Waalbrug route, and evaluate them.
• Make recommendations for the improvement of accessibility to the problem owner.
2.2 Research Questions This sub chapter describes the main research question and the sub questions of this
research.
2.2.1 Main research question The main research question of this research project is the following:
“Which viable measures can be implemented to improve the car transport accessibility
of the city center of Nijmegen from the North (route using the Waalbrug) towards
2025?”
The objective of our project is to design solutions to improve the transport accessibility
of the city center of Nijmegen for car travelers coming from the North of the river Waal
and using the Waalbrug. Our time horizon is the near future, approximately year 2025,
when the new infrastructure developments currently planned will have already been
built (e.g. Stadsbrug). Furthermore, the idea is to look for solutions that can be
considered viable (in terms of technological feasibility, costs and stakeholders’
acceptance).
2.2.2 Research sub-questions Associated to the main research question are more detailed sub-questions that should
help to structure this research and finally answer the main research question. These sub
questions are as follow:
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 3
a) Who are the problem owner(s) and the main stakeholders and what are their main interests?
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) According to which criteria will possible measures be generated and evaluated?
f) What solutions could be implemented to improve transport accessibility?
g) What is the performance of each alternative solution?
h) What advice can be given to the problem owner(s)?
Al these sub questions will be answered in several chapters of this research, starting at
chapter three. The next sub chapters will give clearance in
2.3 Scope In this sub chapter the scope of the project will be defined. As in a research it is
important to define the research boundaries, due to the fact that including all aspects
may cause an unstructured or complicated research. Also in order to propose a feasible
solution, it is necessary to demarcate the problem on a number of aspects. According to
the systems thinking approach for problem solving1, we demarcated (scoped) the
problem on the following systems:
• Sub systems (geographical)
• Aspect system (financial, technical, policy & traffic flows)
• Phase system (time period)
Geographical scope Geographically we will demarcate the area from the city center of Nijmegen and the
northern area towards Arnhem. The main focus here is the route (corridor) on the
Waalbrug from and to the city center. The geographical area in which measures are
considered is also consistent with this demarcated area.
Traffic flows The following traffic flows are being considered: motorized (car) traffic flows used from
traffic model outputs and origin & destination figures which are also used for the
number of trips in case for analyzing public transport. The analysis of cycle traffic in this
research is out of the scope.
1 Lecture slides TIL4030; 22 September 2008
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 4
Technical The technical scope in this project is also limited. Specific details of construction
elements of the several measures and other technical details are not calculated.
Financial The financial scope in this research is limited, because the focus is only on investment
costs and maintenance costs for implementing the several measures. Cost estimations
or not in detail, but are kept generally, only to give an overview of possible expected
costs. Calculating the economical feasibility, which is often being done in public projects,
in terms of a Cost/Benefit analysis is also out of the scope.
Policy aspect The focus in this research on policy level is scoped to be considered as identifying
stakeholders, which are involved or related with the problem. Also the main issues
according to these stakeholders are in the scope. They are also considered in analyzing
the measures. As the Local Government of Nijmegen is the problem owner in this
research, policy documents and other sources according to their policy making are part
of the scope.
Time period The time period which is focused on in this research and also for coming op with a
feasible solution is towards 2025, so the coming 15 years.
2.4 Process overview As the main goal of the project is to generate solutions for improving the accessibility of
the city center of Nijmegen, in this paragraph the steps which are taken will be
mentioned. Because this includes the design of alternatives, a so called basic design
cycle will be used as a base for this research.
Analysis
Synthesis
Simulation
Evaluation
Criteria
Preliminary alternatives
Performance
Value of alternatives
Functions
Recommendations
Figure 2-1 Basic Design Cycle
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 5
In the analysis part the projects starts with analyzing the problem by first analyzing the
current situation. This is done by analyzing the problem on several perspectives by
performing multiple analyses. Involved stakeholders and their interests are analyzed
and further on some more background of the situation is looked into. Some analysis and
also brainstorm sessions of the researchers will lead to criteria that are found important
and which will be used for important performance indicators for possible alternatives.
In the synthesis part, possible solutions will be generated which leads to a set of
preliminary alternatives. The effects of the alternatives will be tested in the simulation
part which leads to the performance of the preliminary alternatives.
Then, the criteria will be used to evaluate the effects in the evaluation part of the cycle.
This includes an examination of how the alternatives score on the different criteria and
which elements are positive considering the actors’ interests. Findings of the evaluation
will provide feedback on the synthesis part where possible adaptations of the
performance evaluation can be implemented. Positive parts of alternatives might be
combined into new alternatives whereas negative outcomes could be dropped. Selected
alternatives will be simulated again which results in an overview of their performance.
Finally, from the evaluation the value of each alternative can be stated which will lead to
recommendations regarding the problem.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 6
3 Analysis In this chapter the problem will be analyzed in depth by performing several analyses.
First accessibility will be explained in terms of several definitions due to literature. From
there on according to this research the definition of accessibility will be adopted.
Further on this chapter continues with the several analyses performed in order to get
more insight in to the problem.
3.1 Definition of accessibility In this sub chapter the definition according to literature of accessibility is described. This
is done by performing a literature review of multiple definitions of accessibility.
3.1.1 Literature review: definitions of accessibility The concept of accessibility is based on the premise that space constrains the number of
opportunities available; consequently, accessibility influences both the travel costs and
the levels of service use and participation in desired activities of people living in a
specific area (Morris et al, 1979). There are wide variations in the definition of
accessibility and the appropriate definition always depends upon the intended
application. Some fields of application are: business or industrial location selections,
travel demand forecasting, population distribution and growth and transportation
planning (Allen, Liu and Singer, 1993).
The following are well-known definitions of accessibility:
• “The benefits provided by a transportation/land-use system” (Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1979).
• “The ease with which any land-use activity can be reached from a location using a particular transport system” (Dalvin and Martin, 1976).
• “The ease with which activities or destinations can be reached from a certain place and with a certain transport system” (Morris, Dumble & Wigan, 1979).
• “The extent to which land-use and transport systems enable (groups of) individuals to reach activities or destinations by means of a (combination of) transport
mode(s)” (Geurs and Van Wee, 2004).
Based on their definition, Geurs and Van Wee (2004) identify four components of
accessibility:
• The land-use component reflects the land-use system, consisting of: a) the amount, quality and spatial distribution opportunities supplied at each destination; b) the
demand for these opportunities at origin locations; and c) the confrontation of
supply of and demand for opportunities, which may result in competition for
activities with restricted capacity.
• The transportation component describes the transport system, expressed as the disutility for an individual to cover the distance between an origin and a destination
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 7
using a specific transport mode; included are the amount of time (travel, waiting
and parking), costs (fixed and variable) and effort (including reliability, level of
comfort, accident risk, etc.). This disutility results from the confrontation between
supply and demand. The supply of infrastructure includes its location and
characteristics (e.g. maximum travel speed, number of lanes, public transport
timetables, travel costs). The demand relates to both passenger and freight traffic.
• The temporal component reflects the temporal constraints, i.e. the availability of opportunities at different times of the day, and the time available for individuals to
participate in certain activities (e.g. work, recreation).
• The individual component reflects the needs (depending on age, income, educational level, household situation, etc.), abilities (depending on people’s physical condition,
availability of travel modes, etc.) and opportunities (depending on people’s income,
travel budget, educational level, etc.) of individuals. These characteristics influence
a person’s level of access to transport modes and spatially distributed opportunities
Ingram (1971) makes a distinction between relative and integral accessibility. Whereas
relative accessibility describes the degree of connection between any two points,
integral accessibility describes the degree of connection between a given point and all
others amongst a spatial set of points (region). Essentially, relative accessibility is a
measure of the effort involved in making a trip, while integral accessibility is a measure
of total travel opportunities (Oberg, 1976).
3.1.2 Definition of accessibility adopted in this project In this research project, accessibility is defined as follows:
“Accessibility is the ease with which individuals can reach a destination from a certain
place within a region, in a certain time period and with a certain transport mode”.
This definition is an adaptation of the definitions proposed by Morris et al. (1979) and
Geurs & Van Wee (2004). It includes a transport component (ease is expressed in terms
of travel time/costs using a specific mode) and a temporal component (different time
periods); however, it does not take into account the land-use and individual
components identified by Geurs & Van Wee (2004). We regard this as a necessary
simplification to operationalize the concept of accessibility for the research project
purposes.
Furthermore, the proposed definition can be considered a definition of integral
accessibility, which means that it describes the degree of connection and the effort
involved in making a trip between one point and a set of points within a given region
(Ingram, 1971).
As already mentioned, the main research question of this research project (see Chapter
2) is the following:
“Which viable measures can be implemented to improve the car transport accessibility
of the city center of Nijmegen from the North (route using the Waalbrug) towards
2025?”
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 8
Therefore, based on the definition of accessibility adopted, the objective of this research
project is to design viable solutions to reduce travel time/costs for car drivers traveling
between Nijmegen center and a set of origins located in the North of the river Waal
using the Waalbrug. Different time periods will be studied (morning peak, evening peak
and off-peak).
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 9
3.2 Stakeholder Analysis In this chapter a stakeholder analysis will be performed to gain insight over the main
actors that have interest in the problem. The basic stakeholder analysis technique
proposed by Bryson (2004) will be used to identify stakeholders and their interests and
clarify their view on the problem. Thereafter a power vs. interest grid and a
stakeholder-issue interrelationship diagram has been constructed to see more in depth
what relations and positions are in place. For more reference on the used techniques we
refer to Bryson (2004) in ‘What to do when stakeholders matter’. The central issue in
this research and starting point in the stakeholder analysis is:
“Accessibility of the City Center of Nijmegen from the north”
3.2.1 Identified Stakeholders & Interests Generally the word ‘stakeholder’ refers to persons, groups or organizations that must
somehow be taken into account by leaders, managers and front-line staff. According to
Bryson stakeholder analyses are now arguably more important than ever because of the
increasingly interconnected nature of the world. Choose the public problem –
accessibility – and it is clear that ‘the problem’ affects numerous people, groups and
organizations. At the same time many groups and organizations are involved or affected
or have some partial responsibility to act. Figuring out what the problem is and what
solutions might improve the situation are actually part of the problem, and taking
stakeholders into account is a crucial aspect of problem solving.
Based on this also in this research attention to stakeholders related with the
accessibility problem is important. In the overview below all the identified stakeholders
related to the accessibility problem in Nijmegen are summarized:
• Local Government (Gemeente Nijmegen)
• City Region (Stadsregio)
• Province (Province Gelderland)
• National Government
• Entrepreneurs
• Kamer van Koophandel
• Entrepreneurs City Center
• ‘Offensief Bereikbaarheid’
• Users of the Waalbrug and routes through the center (commuters)
• Environmental organizations
• Transport companies
• Public Transport
• Transport of goods
• Public transport users
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 10
• Local Political parties of Nijmegen
As can be seen in the list above, the first stakeholder is the local government of
Nijmegen. This actor is chosen to be the problem owner in this research. This is because
they define policy in Nijmegen and own resources like capital, policy and decision power.
In their policymaking better accessibility of the city is stated as one of the important
goals. In the next paragraphs all identified stakeholders will be elaborated on in short to
get a good idea of what their ideas and points of view or interests in relation with the
problem are.
Local Government (Problem owner) The municipality of Nijmegen states several goals in their policy documents with respect
to the accessibility of the city center and Nijmegen in general.
Main points will be listed. First of all, the municipality states that the economy should be
stimulated by making companies accessible for both customers and employees. Also,
those should be accessible for transporters of goods. For the city center this means that
shops and facilities must be easily accessible by several modes. In achieving this goal,
attention must be paid to a good air quality, quietness, safety and livability. In realizing
this, the local government prefers public transport and bike alternatives. Also, the car
network should be optimized first before realizing new infrastructure.
City Region KAN The city region also strives for improved accessibility of important economical regions.
They think the focus of solutions should be on improvement of current flows and public
transport.
Province Gelderland The province’s goals are to stimulate the economy through improved accessibility of
commercial areas and facilities. In reaching this goal, there should be sustainable
balance between livability, accessibility and safety.
National Government The national government promotes a strong economy through improved accessibility.
The network should be reliable and pricing can be applied where necessary.
Furthermore, the national government wants to increase the use of public transport and
improve livability. Public private partnerships are preferred where possible.
Entrepreneurs City Center (VBO Nijmegen) VBO Nijmegen represents the entrepreneurs in the city center. Their goal is to improve
the accessibility of the city center. According to them, solutions for public transport and
cyclists have just marginal effect. Therefore, measures should be designed for improving
the car accessibility. They find especially the improvement of the distribution of goods
important. Also, they find the quality of air important, but measures to improve this
should not affect parking rates.
‘Offensief Bereikbaarheid’ Offensief Bereikbaarheid is cooperation between governmental and commercial parties.
They aim for a common approach against congestion and delays. The goal is to come up
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 11
with so called ‘smart solutions’ like flexible work days, tele-working and alternatives for
car use.
Kamer van Koophandel The Kamer van Koophandel (KvK) represents several commercial parties and defends
their interests. They claim that measures for the improvement of accessibility should be
aimed at car transport. This is because for most people car transport is the only
alternative. Furthermore, they are in favor of improving the public transport
connections with employment areas (e.g. the city center). Also, parking management in
the city center should be strict and beneficial for entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the KvK
wants to separate users (pedestrians, cyclists, car users) to increase the flow of car
traffic and claims that extra infrastructure should be built to comply with future demand.
Traffic on the Waalbrug and Singels with destination city center This part of the traffic is interested in quick access routes to the city center. Also,
enough parking spaces should be available as close to the center as possible. Traffic
safety is also an important factor.
Through traffic on the Waalbrug and Singels This part of the traffic is bound for other destinations and uses the routes in the city
center to reach them. They are mainly interested in continuous flows on the routes
through the center (Waalbrug and Singels) and a reliable network without delays.
Environmental organizations (Milieudefensie, Gelderse Milieufederatie) The Environmental organization’s main goals are to improve the use of public transport
and bike use for a better accessibility. They are against construction of new
infrastructure. They claim for conservation of city characteristics, nature and more
green in the city center of Nijmegen. Furthermore also a good living environment (e.g.
noise, air quality) are important factors.
Public Transport companies Public transport companies are in favor of public transport alternatives. They like
dedicated public transport facilities and good connectivity with other modes. In the end,
their main interest is making profit.
Public transport users (ROVER) Public transport users (represented by ROVER) are in favor of alternatives that improve
the quality or lower the costs of public transport.
Pedestrians and Cyclists (Fietsersbond) Pedestrians and cyclists are both supporting investments in infrastructure
improvements for both modes. Multi-level crossings, wider bike lanes and bike parking
facilities are most favorable solutions for these groups. From the interest for traffic
safety, separation of traffic flows is desirable.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 12
Political Parties of Nijmegen As political parties are also related with the accessibility issue because of their role in
the decision process of policy according accessibility, they are also indentified as
stakeholders.
Statements of the political parties for (last) elections, derived from election programs:
PvdA According to the PvdA, the accessibility of the city center has a high priority. The focus in
this should be on new parking facilities, high quality public transport and bike network
combined with transferia to improve the accessibility of the center. For the bike
network, safety has priority.
SP The SP thinks that the accessibility of the center should be improved by means of
transferia on the edge of Nijmegen and the increase of bike and public transport use.
There should be enough parking spaces for visitors and employees. Also, attention
should be paid to traffic safety and air quality.
GroenLinks GroenLinks is in favor of measures that have positive effects on the climate. Examples
include free parking permits for electricity or natural gas powered cars. Also, there
should be more parking facilities for bikes and public transport should stay free for elder
people.
VVD The VVD stands for good accessibility of the city center for all modalities. They promote
the improvement of car traffic flows through redesigning the traffic situation on the
roads around the city center. They are not against new infrastructure if this improves
the situation. Also, more parking spaces for cars and bikes are necessary around the city
center.
CDA CDA stands for more infrastructure and especially smaller adaptions like widening roads
or so called smart solutions in current infrastructure. They are not against the pricing as
that leads to the user pays principle. Furthermore, they want to improve the quality of
the public transport.
From the identified stakeholders above can be concluded that all these are involved
somehow in the accessibility problem and are also different in origin. Several originate
from governmental institutions (local government, national government and province)
and others are involved business actors or civil organizations.
3.2.2 Power vs. Interest grid The power vs. interest grid distinguishes the ‘players’ with both interest and power from
the subjects (interest but little power), context setters (power but little interest) and the
crowd (little interest or power) (Bryson, 2004). This way, the most important actors can
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 13
be identified and it shows which players’ interest must be taken into account when
defining criteria.
Players
Figure 3-1 Power vs. Interest grid
The power versus interest grid above typically helps to determine which players’
interests and power bases must be taken into account in order to address the
accessibility problem in Nijmegen. Actors with high interest and significant power beside
the Local government are the political parties, Province Gelderland and the
Environmental organizations, Offensief Bereikbaarheid en the business parties.
Remarkable is the National Government, because they have a lot of power but not a
high interest.
3.2.3 Stakeholder Issue interrelationship Stakeholder- issue interrelationship diagrams help show which stakeholders have
interest in different issues (Bryson, 2004). Also this diagram shows how the stakeholders
might be related to other stakeholders through their relationships with the issues. The
issues came from the results of the different analyses and the most important interests
from the important players mentioned in the sub chapter above. Besides this also a
small brainstorm session of the researchers contribute to the identified issues. The
issues found are:
Accessibility
• Travel time
• Travel costs
• Travel time reliability
Livability
• Air quality
• Noise
• Traffic safety
Costs
• Investments costs
• Operation and Maintenance
costs
Table 3-1 Issues with sub issues
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 14
Each of the issues listed above comprehends several sub issues. These sub-issues will be
elaborated and from there on the important criteria will be derived in the next chapter.
Combining these main issues and the main actors with interest and power the diagram
in the figure under can be drawn. The thicker the line between actor and issue, the
more interest the stakeholder has in that issue.
Figure 3-2 Stakeholder – issue interrelationship diagram
From the diagram above can be noticed that only the main actors are taken into account.
These important actors can influence the issues and are the so called crucial actors.
3.2.4 Conflicts of interests From the stakeholder analysis different conflicts can be indentified between the most
important players. One of the main conflicts is between the Environmental groups on
the one hand and the Kamer van Koophandel and the Entrepeneurs City Center on the
other. The former are against more infrastructures for cars and strive for more car
reducing measures, whereas the latter claim that more infrastructure and other car
oriented measures are necessary for increasing the accessibility of the city center for
more infrastructure. The local government is situated somewhere in between those
parties. In the Discussienota Nijmegen Betrouwbaar Bereikbaar (2009) they state that
new infrastructure is not desired and that other measures should be looked at first. Van
den Anker, local government representative, (Interview, 2010) confirms this in an
interview. However, they also promote more parking availability around the city center
which leans towards the point that the KvK and city center entrepreneurs make.
Also political parties are divided when solution directions are concerned. 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
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
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 15
possible removal of nature and green in case of physical measures. Also, parties favoring
bike and public transport conflict with the business parties (KvK, City Center
Entrepreneurs) who claim that bike and public transport alternatives only have marginal
effect and that car accessibility should be the focus.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 16
3.3 Policy Analysis Due to the traffic jams on the Waalbrug and the congestion on many roads south of the
Waal it takes considerable time to travel from the north side of Nijmegen to the city
center and the southern areas of Nijmegen and vice versa. The public and political
discussion about solving this raising mobility problem went back to the early seventies
when they started talking about building an extra bridge over the Waal. In this chapter
the taken, future and not implemented measures will be discussed. The measures will
be discussed one by one and be focused on their goal and the results.
3.3.1 Current measures In this paragraph the focus will be on the current measures, which are implemented in
Nijmegen to avoid congestion and improve accessibility. These measures will be
discussed separately.
Smart Pricing The city region Arnhem and Nijmegen is growing rapidly evolving both in population and
activity. Like the Randstad, the urban region Arnhem and Nijmegen also wants to grow
to one of the strongest region of the Netherlands. A prerequisite is that the region must
be attractive, accessible and competitive. To maintain accessibility, many measures
have been put in motion. One of those measures is the so called Smart Pricing. Smart
Pricing, as part of the project “Betalen voor mobiliteit”, is an initiative of the city region
Arnhem and Nijmegen in collaboration with the municipality of Nijmegen and the
Ministry of Transport. The goal of this pricing measure on the Waalbrug was to decrease
the disturbance of car traffic on the bridge during construction activities. By
implementing Smart pricing on the Waalbrug, car owners are being rewarded for not
using the Waalbrug in peak hours. Smart Pricing is one of the projects resulting from
“Offensief Bereikbaarheid”. This pricing measure was implemented at the beginning of
September 2009 because of reconstruction activities on the A325 and Prins
Mauritssingel (the connection between Arnhem and Nijmegen).
Map 3-1 Smartpricing on the Waalbrug
Participants of this Smart Pricing can get 4 euro’s a day by avoiding the Waalbrug in
peak hours. The total amount of participants was about 7000. By implementing this
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 17
measure to avoid congestion on the Waalbrug during construction works, the number of
cars passing the Waalbrug in peak hours decreased about 8%-10%2. On daily basis this is
on average 650 car drivers in the morning peak and around 680 in the evening peak.
Because this ‘positive’ pricing measure was considered successful, it is being extended
to other areas were construction work is being planned. However, the measure is
expensive and questions are raised whether Smart Pricing truly caused a better use of
the capacity or that it might have been other measures, or the financial crisis that
reduced traffic load in peak hours.
According to the city region Arnhem Nijmegen, Smart Pricing is an effective measure to
avoid congestion on the Waalbrug in case of construction works. As this measure seems
to be not sustainable, and because funds to implement it are dependent of the national
government, one can conclude that this measure will be not effective in situations
without construction works.
‘Waalsprinter’ The realization of the Waalsprinter was also implemented for a better accessibility of
Nijmegen. Initially a pilot was funded in September 2007 by the Ministry of Transport,
Gelderland and the city region Anrhem – Nijmegen. After the success of this pilot, the
Waalsprinter became part of the transportation service network with high frequencies
on different routes in Nijmegen. The Waalsprinter is a shuttle bus which carries
commuters quickly from a park and ride facility to the inner-city of Nijmegen and
Heijendaal (university area) and vice versa. The Waalsprinter is allowed to use the bus
lane in the south direction on the Waalbrug. This transportation service has a high
frequency, uses the existing public bus lanes and is a good alternative for car drivers to
avoid congestion on the Waalbrug. But also this measure has its limitations. This
because of the less availability of parking places at the Park and ride facility and the
point-to-point service.
Figure 3-3 Waalsprinter (source: Gemeente Nijmegen 2009)
2 http://www.destadsregio.nl/news_detail.asp?NewsID=523
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 18
Beside the point to point Waalsprinterservice, companies and institutions have the
opportunity to own their mini busses (My Waalsprinterservice) which can uses the
existing public bus lane to transport workers from the park and ride facility at the North
of Waal on to the inner city of Nijmegen. The advantage of this measure for workers is
to avoid the traffic jams on the Waalbrug and to be faster at work. My Waalsprinter
service is designed for companies that are not easily accessible with the Waalsprinter
bus. The main goal of this measure is to increase the accessibility of Nijmegen center
and other important areas by providing fast and reliable public transport.
Figure 3-4 Travel Time Information from Junction Ressen (Gemeente Nijmegen 2010)
On the website of the municipality of Nijmegen it is possible to check the actual travel
times with the Waalsprinter, comparing with the car routes via the Waalbrug and the
A15/A50/A73 and the availability of parking places for the Waalsprinter. By providing
this dynamic information the Waalsprinterservice can be reliable for its users.
Dynamic Traffic Management Waalbrug and Inner city The traffic control installations on crucial intersections (on the singles) are being
optimized. All to provide a better traffic flow on the main routes between the Waalbrug
and the inner city. Realization of a so-called green wave could not only lead to an
optimal flow for traffic but also have a positive effect on the air quality of the direct area.
A good quality of the air around the main roads can help to achieve the environmental
goals of the local government.
Optimized bike network Cycling in the Netherlands is very popular. This is also the case in Nijmegen. A lot of
residents use a bike to travel from origin to destination or vice versa. Stimulating people
to use a bike instead of a car could also help to make the city accessible. As cycling has a
positive effect on the environment compared with traveling by cars, the municipality
gives more effort on improving the current bike network in Nijmegen. To stimulate
people using a bike, an optimized bike network and good facilities are needed. That’s
why (rapid) cycling routes are being implemented. This bike corridor allows cyclists to
travel fast from the Waal area through the city center (and other southern destination
like to Heijendaal area) and vice versa. (e.g. cycle routes: Central station-Nijmegen
North from via the snelbinder accross the Waal). Also the numbers of bicycle clips
downtown and at the stations are significantly increased. Beside these physical
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 19
measures to improve accessibility for cyclist, also information is being provided about
the awareness of cycling. Picture X gives an overview of the bike network in Nijmegen.
Figure 3-5 Bikenetwork and Snelbinder cycle bridge (source: Gemeente Nijmegen 2010
3)
Binnenstadsservice.nl (BSS) Another measure to avoid congestion in the inner city of Nijmegen was the so-called
Binnenstadservice (inner-city service). This service has the ambition to realize clean air,
better accessibility and a better livability in de cities of Nijmegen. They reach their goal
by providing good services. This consolidation center is different from initiatives in the
past, as it focuses on receivers rather than carriers. Binnenstadservice (BSS) solves partly
the old problem of distributing goods in the inner city by using different alternatives of
distributing, like bundling small loads on an environmental, fast and sustainable way.
The mission of BSS in Nijmegen is to provide logistical services to local inner city stores,
regional consumers, and local government. The location of BSS is outside the city center
and for eighteen hours a day goods can be received and picked up.
Figure 3-6 Binnenstadservice's transport verhicles
3 http://www2.nijmegen.nl/content/567200/snelfietsroutes
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 20
The main objective of BSS is to minimize the amount of (heavy vehicle) trips through the
city center. An evaluation research of this measure (TNO, 2009)4 don after one year
from the implementation (2008) concludes that BSS is doing good ‘businesses’ in
Nijmegen. Further the research also concludes that the number of stores that is joining
the BSS is still growing and also the volume of cargo to be handled is increasing. Beside
this BSS service, due to the BSS consolidation center, the number of trucks (heavy
vehicles) in the city center decreased. The effects on local air quality and noise
hindrance are limited due to the fact of the amount of remaining car and bus traffic.
Financially BSS is also dependent from governmental subsidies. It partly services as a
social workplace, so some staff is partly subsidized by local authorities.
Free PT for 65+ What the municipality of Nijmegen also implemented was free public transport for
people of 65 years or older during the off peak hours. By introducing this transport
policy the municipality of Nijmegen is the first in the Netherlands that offers a free
public transport service. This service was originally started in 2007 like a pilot by the
municipality of Nijmegen, together with the city region Arnhem Nijmegen. After a
positive evaluation of the pilot the service has been extended in 2008 for its users.
Evaluation of this measure (Ministry of Transport, 2008)5 shows that the number of
travelers (65 +) per bus ride increases from an average of 2 till 3,4. This means that
more people are using this free public transport service. Beside the fact that more
people are using this service since it’s free, they also use it more frequent than in the
situation when it was not free. The advantages of free public transport are a decrease in
the number of car trips and an increase in mobility for people with a low income.
Furthermore it can also be concluded that the effects on improving accessibility are just
marginal, as the group of participants (65+ users) are not such a large amount of
travelers. Beside this, these user classes mostly travel in off peak periods. Finally it is
also a difficult and unrealistic task to provide free public transport for multiple user
classes, due to financial aspects and uncertainties.
Dynamic Public Transport Information Dynamic public transport information was a measure based on an information system
for public transport travelers. To provide actual information about arrival and departure
times or irregularities, the traveler will be better informed about the current situation.
Providing this information for travelers gives the possibility to use other alternatives of
transportation modes.
Prins Mauritssingel The so-called Pleyroute is the busiest provincial route in Gelderland, this is the route
from Arnhem east (A12) into Nijmegen at the Waalbrug. Until 2020 traffic on this road
will increase with 20 till 30% (6). Without measures there will be a lot of traffic
congestion route that leads to a negative impact on the environment and economy. As
4 A new type of urban consolidation centre: TNO 2009
5 Evaluatie gratis openbaarvervoer voor 65 plussers, Amsterdam 2008
6 http://www.gelderlander.nl/voorpagina/arnhem/3059079/Reconstructie-van-Pleyroute.ece
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 21
the Prins Mauritssingel is part of this route, the municipality took some measures to
improve accessibility and livability to Nijmegen. These measures are also meant to
reduce hindrance and decrease damage to the environment because of the high
intensities of traffic on this route. The maximum speed on a part of this route, from the
junction Ressen till the Traianusplein in Nijmegen (see Map 3-2), has been decreased
from 80 km/hour to 50 km/hour. And for a better accessibility of the new residential
areas like the Waalsprong a ‘roundabout’ is being constructed. The goal of all these
physical measures on the Prins Mauritssingel is not only to avoid congestion and
improve the accessibility of Nijmegen from the North, but due to positive environmental
conditions around the road the Municipality can invest in the development of more new
residential areas.
Map 3-2 Prins Mauritssingel
3.3.2 Future measures Already a lot of measures have been taken, but the accessibility problem in Nijmegen is
not expected to be solved with those measures. With the building of a new residential
area at the Waalsprong, northern part of Nijmegen, the problem of passing the Waal
will increase and thereby the accessibility problems in Nijmegen will continue to exist (7).
Therefore the government decided to take several measures in the coming years. These
measures will be discussed by their goal and a brief explanation of each future planned
measure will be given.
In 1998 alderman Thielen proposed for the first time the Stadsbrug (Citybridge) as an
optional solution for Nijmegen. After years of discussion about extending the A73 this
solution was an eye opener in the solution space of the accessibility problem in and
around Nijmegen. Only seven years later, in 2005 the region (represented by the
Province, Stadsregio and the Municipal of Nijmegen) agreed about the solutions for the
7 Discussienota Nijmegen betrouwbaar bereikbaar, juni 2009, par. 4.1
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 22
traffic problem in the region: widening the A50 and building the Stadsbrug, a second
crossing on the Waal.
Stadsbrug The decision factors to build the Stadsbrug were multiple. The first reason was the
current high traffic intensity on the Waalbrug and the inner city road network that leads
to accessibility problems. And the city of Nijmegen has a fragile road network structure
with a dependency of having only one bridge to the city center and the A50. In case of
emergency or big maintenance in the city of Nijmegen the accessibility problem
becomes even larger. Thereby the development of a new residential area, the
‘Waalsprong’, at the northern side of the Waal will increase demand for passing the
Waal. The development and restructuring of the area of West-Nijmegen also asks for an
increased network capacity. The last important decision factor was the planned big
maintenance of the Waalbrug and the rebuilding of the dikes in the coming years. The
capacity availability on the Waalbrug during this period will be limited and the need for
a new bridge therefore more evident.
The main goal of this measure was an even distribution of urban car traffic between the
Stadsbrug and the existing Waalbrug. Due to the construction of the Stadsbrug the
expected traffic intensity at the Waalbrug will not become higher than the current level
+ 10%. Without building the Stadsbrug the traffic intensity will increase with 40% (8).
More detailed estimated effects of the Stadsbrug will be discussed in the network
analysis.
Widening the A50 The flow speed objective during the rush hours at a highway is 60 km/h. The A50 is an
important chain on international, national and regional level. Especially between Ewijk
and Valburg the flow speed in the rush hours is lower than the objective. There are
already some utilization measures taken, like peak lanes and extending of the entrance
and exit lanes, but there was a need for a sustainable solution to improve the
accessibility and to reduce travel time losses (9).
To increase the capacity at the highway network in the region Arnhem-Nijmegen the
option to extend the A73 to the A15 was discussed as well. But based on combination of
feasibility, long term problem solving, eligibility and public support the option of
widening A50 has been chosen (10). The A50 will be widened from 2x2 lanes to 2x4
lanes. The current peak lane will expire. Thereby the capacity of the nodes Ewijk and
Valburg will also increase (11).
8 Tauw, MER Stadsbrug Nijmegen 2004, conclusions chapter 7.
9 Rijkswaterstaat Oost-Nederland – A50 Nieuws, nr. 7
10 Bestuurlijke Begeleidings Groep Grote Infra KAN, “….. naar een verbindende oplossing” juli
2004, chapter 7.
11 Website RWS
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 23
HOV-Network The accessibility of the region Arnhem Nijmegen will be negatively affected due to the
growing car traffic. High Quality Public Transport will help to decrease the speed of the
growing car traffic and helps to complement the current Public Transport Network. In
the past years there has been a lot of research on how the High Quality Public Transport
Network has to look like, starting at the connection between Nijmegen Heijendaal and
Bemmel and later on continuing to Arnhem. This connection is supposed to become a
tramline and is already in a preliminary design stage where also the bus alternative will
be taken into account. In 2028 the High Quality Public Network must be fully
operational and must consist of six lines. The most important connections then meet
the required travel time standard. The main aspect of the High Quality Public Transport
Network will be an isolated, more reliable, network structure. This is not the case with
the current Public Transport measures, like the Waalsprinter. The investments for a
dedicated infrastructure to upgrade these projects to High Quality Public Transport are
quite high and will be shared by the National Government, the Province and the local
governments.
Figure 3-7 Plannend HOV-network (Verkenning HOV 2009)
From the above-mentioned public transport measures can be concluded that
improvement of public transport is considered essential for a better accessibility of
Nijmegen. Different developments in the public transport services like higher
frequencies, adding new services (tram), extra stops on existing public transport lines
and also accessibility of industrial area’s by PT results in a better accessibility of
Nijmegen in general. But what can also be remarked is that improvement in PT will not
lead automatically to improved accessibility of all areas by all modes because of the
illusion that more people will use PT. Also, extra stops on existing lines may causes a
higher travel time from a to b. although the service is reliable and the pt network is
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 24
optimal. But still people may be not convinced to uses PT, and continuing to uses the car
to travel from a to b.
Increasing Parking Capacity The municipality of Nijmegen also extends the parking capacity in the inner city. There
are plans to build approximately 650 parking places under the van Schaeck
Mathonsingel, in combination with bicycle facilities (appr.1000). Based on the national
ratios, there’s a shortage of 1.400 parking places in the inner city of Nijmegen.12
The
main routes from the North to the parking lots in the city center are still passing the
Waalbrug.
3.3.3 Conclusion measures The plans for improving the Public Transport Network and facilities are really ambitious.
These improvements will slow down the growth of the car traffic that wants to pass the
Waal. The Stadsbrug is expected to solve the accessibility problems for the area
Nijmegen West but because of the new residential area (Waalsprong), autonomous
growth, and limited route possibilities to access other parts of Nijmegen, the intensity
on Waalbrug and especially the routes to the city center are likely to remain problematic.
Generally can be concluded that the taken measures will be not able to improve the
accessibility problem in its whole and it will be still expected to occur. The reason is
because these measures do not contribute enough and the effects are just marginal. But
this still means daily congestion and sub-optimal accessibility of certain parts of
Nijmegen. This is mainly because the most important traffic streams to the city center
and Heijendaal are still designated to the Waalbrug.
From the above-mentioned measures (current and future planned measures) can be
concluded that there are also some major risks. The first deals with the finances
available for most of those measures. A part is funded by the local government
(municipality of Nijmegen) by their own resources, but they are also dependent for
funds of the national government. So the local government of Nijmegen has no control
over these funds. Examples include funds for the measure smart pricing. A second risk,
which may concerns, is the autonomous development of traffic. The effects reducing
congestion on the Waalbrug because of the different measures can be smaller than the
increase in movement because of autonomous traffic development. It will be difficult
for certain measure to determine the actual effectiveness, as intensity grows because of
the autonomous growth, while the fact measure is effective. The third risk lies in the
paradox that solving the problem automatically creates new demand. If people find out
that the policy is successful and the route of the Waalbrug is fast and reliable, more
people will choose for this route to enter Nijmegen. This can result in a new
development of increasing traffic jams because of the limited capacity of the Waalbrug.
12 Haalbaarheidstudie Parkeergarage Schaeck Mathonsingel, Grontmij 2004, pag. 8
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 25
3.4 Road Network Analysis In this part of the research, the road network will be analyzed on different levels in the
current and future situation. The assessed levels are the regional and local level. The
main difference between the current and future situation is an extra crossing over the
Waal with the realization of the Stadsbrug. Furthermore, a micro analysis has been
performed on parts of the Waalbrug that deserve extra attention. After the road
network is analyzed, at the end of this chapter (3.4.5) there will be also a discussion
about the parking supply and demand and parking policy. Finally this chapter ends with
conclusions.
3.4.1 Regional level
Current situation Map 3-3 shows the highways that comprise the international-national (blue) and
regional routes (green) in the area of Nijmegen. The international-national highways are
the A12 in the north (running from east to west), the A50 (running north to south
including a Waalcrossing, The A15 connecting to the A50 from west, and the A73
connecting to the A50 from the south. These highways facilitate (inter-)national through
traffic. The regional highways (green) are the highway connecting Arnhem and Nijmegen
(A325) and the A326 in the south, and the A348 in the North. These highways distribute
traffic between the built up areas in the region and between those areas and the (inter-
)national highway network. As can be seen, Nijmegen has two major access routes for
traffic from the north. One is the A50 and A73 that uses the A50 bridge to cross the
Waal. This route is attractive for people going to Nijmegen west and coming from the
A50 (north) and the A15 (west). The other route is the A15 and N325 that uses the
Waalbrug. This route to Nijmegen is the shortest for people coming from areas east of
the A50 and all people from the north going to Nijmegen center or south. The Waalbrug
route is also likely to be used by traffic heading further east of Nijmegen because there
is no Waalcrossing east of Nijmegen earlier than Emmerich.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 26
Map 3-3 International (blue) and national-regional (green) highway network around Nijmegen
Future situation In this paragraph, the future situation of the regional network will be discussed. Major
and minor adaptations will be discussed, including implications for the network. Map
3-4 shows the future regional network structure.
In the future situation, the regional network will be extended with the new to be built
A15. The A15 is planned to be extended towards Zevenaar in the east, mainly to relieve
congestion on the A12 and in the Arnhem region. The A15 will provide an extra East-
West corridor. Also, this will increase access opportunities to Nijmegen from the
northeast.
Although the final decision to construct this has not been taken yet, it is expected that
this will be done in the near future. Therefore, the A15 has been included in the analysis
of the future situation.
Another measure in the regional highway structure is the widening of the A50 between
Ewijk and Valburg (including the bridge). This is expected to relieve congestion on the
A50 and solve delays on this stretch of highway for a large part.
Furthermore, a new bridge (Stadsbrug) will be constructed to create another access
route to Nijmegen crossing the Waal. Implications of the Stadsbrug will be further
elaborated on in the next chapter on the local traffic situation.
Besides this, the national government might introduce ‘rekeningrijden’, general road
pricing which could have influence on car mobility in general. Also, several traffic
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 27
management measures are being planned to improve traffic flows on the regional
network.
In the future regional situation, the access routes to Nijmegen will remain roughly the
same, besides that the Stadsbrug will provide a new opportunity to access Nijmegen
west via the N325.
Map 3-4 Future regional network
3.4.2 Local level In this paragraph, a more detailed analysis will be performed on the network and traffic
situation for Nijmegen. Again, current and future situation will be assessed.
Current situation Map 3-5 Current road network classification (access roads in orange, distribution roads
in yellow)Map 3-5 shows the main access roads and distribution roads in Nijmegen. As
observed, there are multiple access routes for traffic entering the city from the south
and west (4 access roads). This traffic is distributed within the city via three distribution
roads: Industrieweg, Graafseweg and Sint Annastraat. However, traffic coming from the
east and the north can access the city only through the N325 and then there is only one
distribution road to enter the city (Oranjesingel).
Of the previously described access routes from the north, the Waalbrug route provides
the most convenient route to access the city center and Nijmegen south. The other
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 28
route (entering Nijmegen from the west) is more attractive for destinations in Nijmegen
west.
Map 3-5 Current road network classification (access roads in orange, distribution roads in
yellow)
Future situation (with Stadsbrug) Map 3-6 shows the main access, distribution and flow roads in Nijmegen. After the
Stadsbrug has been built, the local government is planning to upgrade several access
and distribution roads to flow roads to create a semi-ring road around Nijmegen. This
semi-ring should provide more route opportunities and improve the connectivity
between the west (where several major destination zones are located) and the north of
the city. As a result, a reduction of the traffic loads in the Waalbrug and the routes
through the city center is expected.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 29
Map 3-6 Future road network (classification: access roads in orange, distribution roads in
yellow, flow roads in red)
Future network developments provide a new alternative for people accessing Nijmegen
from the north. Especially the accessibility of Nijmegen west will be improved. For the
city center and Nijmegen south however, the Waalbrug will remain the most convenient
access road.
3.4.3 Regional travel demand In the previous sections the local and regional networks of Nijmegen have been
assessed. As being one of the two access routes to Nijmegen from the north, the
Waalbrug is an important route for people coming from that direction. The new
Stadsbrug will provide another access route, which is an attractive alternative for people
going to Nijmegen west. Therefore, in the new situation the Waalbrug route is
especially important for people from the north going to Nijmegen city center and south
and vice versa. To get a better view of where these people come from, it is important to
have insight in the travel demand between Nijmegen and relevant areas. In this
paragraph, current and future travel demand in the region will be assessed.
Current situation As earlier mentioned, in the current situation the Waalbrug is part of the main access
route for many areas north of the Waal. To gain insight in the origins and destinations of
traffic on the Waalbrug, the car travel demand per area has been displayed in Map 3-7.
This is also displayed in the tables in Annex I.
As can be seen the major origins and destinations for traffic to and from Nijmegen
center and south are Waalsprong (Lent) and Arnhem. Of the smaller settlements in the
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 30
area Bemmel and Elst generate the most traffic. It can also be observed that of all trips,
Nijmegen center has the largest share in the travel demand between northern regions
and parts of Nijmegen.
Map 3-7 Current Regional Travel demand
Future situation Map 3-8shows the origins and destinations for the expected situation in 2020. Besides
autonomous growth it can be observed that especially the travel demand to and from
the Waalsprong will grow. This has to do with the planned developments for that area.
In the coming years, 11.000 dwellings are planned to be realized in this area. As a
consequence, travel demand from this residential area to Nijmegen is expected to
become four times as high in 2020, causing extra pressure on the network. Growth in
other regions can mainly be addressed to autonomous growth. Total travel demand to
and from northern regions to Nijmegen center and south is expected to be about 50.000
trips. As earlier mentioned, the Waalbrug will remain the main route for these people.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 31
Map 3-8 Future regional traffic demand
3.4.4 Traffic intensities The previous sections gave insight in the network and spatial structure of Nijmegen and
the region. This included the travel demand from the relevant areas. This demand
results in a network load. In this section the traffic load and intensities will be discussed,
including an analysis of problematic parts of the network.
The traffic load on the highways is high, which decreases the accessibility of the cities of
Nijmegen and Arnhem. This has been displayed in Map 3-9. It shows on which roads
significant delays occurred in 2004. Purple indicates the bottlenecks in the network with
structural traffic problems. One important bottleneck is located on the A50 north of
Nijmegen. Other points where delays occur are located on the route on the Waalbrug to
the city center of Nijmegen from the north and around Arnhem. The focus of this
research will be on the city center of Nijmegen and its accessibility towards 2025.
Therefore, an analysis of the future and local situation is needed, which will be
performed in the next paragraph.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 32
Map 3-9 Traffic problems in the KAN Region (Source: Netwerkanalyse Arnhem Nijmegen)
To gain more insight into the local situation, it is useful to see what the characteristics of
the traffic problem are. Table 3-2 shows the expected future intensities and I/C ratios of
the Waalbrug and Stadsbrug. Although the Stadsbrug takes account for a share of the
traffic crossing the Waal, the intensities (and therefore I/C ratios) on the Waalbrug
remain high. This is mainly because of earlier described autonomous growth and
developments on the northern side of the Waal. The table also shows that I/C ratios are
highest during peak hours (morning and evening). This indicates that the situation is
most severe for home-work traffic. The total traffic demand on the Waalbrug is
expected to be 60.500 (see Table 3-2). Of this number, about 50.000 trips are estimated
to have a trip end in the earlier explained northern region.
Table 3-2 Traffic effects for autonomous and future situation (source: Tauw, 2004)
Annex II till VV show intensities and intensity/capacity ratios of the area under
consideration in the peak hours. As can be derived, the highest I/C ratios occur on the
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 33
Waalbrug, the Keizer Traianusplein and on the Singels. Tauw (2004) emphasizes that the
Keizer Traianusplein is the bottleneck on this route. However, the capacity of the
Waalbrug itself is also limited.
Major conflicts can be identified on the Keizer Traianusplein and on the Singels
(especially left turn to Prins Bernhardstraat direction Nijmegen South). When zooming
into the Keizer Traianusplein, one can identify several large flows. One is from the
Waalbrug to the Singels and vice versa, which have about the same intensity in both
morning and evening peak. Second, there is a large flow between the Waalbrug and the
Ubbergseweg (direction Beek, Ubbergen and further to Germany). The intensities differ
between morning and evening peak. Especially the left turn from the Waalbrug to the
Ubbergseweg (which is most intense in the evening) conflicts with the flow to and from
the Singels.
Furthermore, Haskoning (2009) analyzed the characteristics of current traffic
accessing/leaving Nijmegen from/to the north (using the Waalbrug). Graph 3-1 shows
where the traffic on the Waalbrug is bound for/coming from with respect to the corridor
Waalbrug-Oranjesingel-Sint Annastraat. Figure 3-8 is a map-based representation of the
graph of Graph 3-1 and it shows the percentages of traffic entering the city from the
Waalbrug that is still on the corridor on certain crossings in the morning peak. From
Graph 3-1 and Figure 3-8 can be inferred that:
• the corridor is not mainly used by through traffic, but for distribution of traffic amongst destinations within Nijmegen, and for collection of traffic that goes to the
Waalbrug from origins within the city;
• a large percentage of the traffic present on the Waalbrug leaves the corridor at the Keizer Traianusplein which indicates direction city center or the N325 to
Beek/Germany;
• a large percentage of the traffic present on the Waalbrug leaves the corridor at the point of the Prins Bernhardstraat (which is the road leading to Nijmegen South or a
right turn to the city center);
• only 35-45% of the traffic present on the Waalbrug reaches/comes from the Keizer Karelplein.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 34
Figure 3-8 Distribution Waalbrug traffic entering city in the morning peak (current situation)
(Haskoning 2009)
verspreiding verkeer Waalbrug 2007
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Brug Berg enDalseweg
Bernhardstraat Keizer Karel Groenestraat Scheidingsweg N273 A73
locatie
per
cent
age
OS stad in AS stad in OS stad uit AS stad uit
Graph 3-1 Current traffic distribution to and from the Waalbrug (Haskoning 2009)
Graph 3-2 shows where the traffic on the Waalbrug goes to/comes from with respect to
the corridor Waalbrug-Oranjesingel-Sint Annastraat in the future situation (Haskoning,
2009). When Graph 3-2 (future situation) is compared with Graph 3-1 (current situation),
a significant variation is observed: there is a smaller share of the traffic from the
Waalbrug still present on the Keizer Karelplein in the future situation. This indicates that
less traffic bound for locations in the western part of Nijmegen uses the Waalbrug. This
is because the Stadsbrug provides a convenient alternative for the destinations located
in that part of Nijmegen. Furthermore, it can be observed that relatively more traffic
leaves the corridor at the Keizer Traianusplein or at the Prins Bernhardstraat which
indicates that traffic going to / coming from Germany/Beek, Nijmegen South or the city
center still take the Waalbrug as their route.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 35
verspreiding verkeer Waalbrug 2020
0%
10%20%
30%
40%50%
60%
70%
80%90%
100%
Brug
Berg
en D
alsew
eg
Bern
hards
traat
Keize
r Kare
l
Groe
nestr
aat
Sche
iding
sweg N2
73A7
3
locatie
per
cen
tag
e
OS stad in AS stad in OS stad uit AS stad uit
Graph 3-2 Distribution of future traffic on the Waalbrug
Although a decrease of traffic load is expected, due to autonomous growth and future
developments the Waalbrug will still have a problematic I/C ratio indicating continuing
congestion problems as Tauw (2004) state in their environmental impact assessment
(see also the table below). Also, Tauw emphasizes that the Waalbrug itself is not the
bottleneck in this part of the network, but that the Keizer Traianusplein is.
For this reason, it is interesting to perform an analysis of the traffic situation on both the
Waalbrug and the Traianusplein, since this is the part of the Waalbrug route that
experiences most congestion.
Keizer Traianusplein Currently, the Keizer Traianusplein is the bottleneck in the Waalbrug route to Nijmegen.
For traffic going to the city center two exits on the Traianusplein exist. One is to the
eastern part of the city and comprises the right turn from the Waalbrug. The other route
is going straight over the Traianusplein onto the Singels and accounts for the largest part
of the traffic. Straight traffic to and from the Singels (direction city center) will have to
pass two junctions which have limited capacity. One junction is located in the north
closer to the Waalbrug (T1), the other is further south and close to the Singels (T2). The
junctions and their corresponding flows (in 2020 evening peaks) have been displayed in
Map 3-10 and Map 3-11. A capacity analysis based on a traffic light survey has been
performed to gain insight in the situation.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 36
Map 3-10 Current situation Traianusplein 1
Green arrows indicate that the current capacity is sufficient to cope with the demand in
2020. Yellow arrows indicate that some congestion occurs as a result of too much
demand for the capacity. Red arrows indicate severe congestion. This occurs especially
on the road segment where flows from the Waalbrug and eastern direction merge. The
congestion that follows spills back on the Waalbrug and affects other car users as well.
Another road segment that has a limited capacity is the one for traffic merging in
towards the Waalbrug.
The same concept has been used to display the situation on T2. First, there is the flow
from the Singels to the Traianusplein. The demand from this direction is higher than the
capacity of the junction which causes congestion on the Singels. Second, there is the
crossing flow which is larger than the capacity of the junction. This causes congestion
which spills back to the Waalbrug. This effect is strengthened by the road segments
before and after the junction. These segments are also congested as a consequence of
other traffic mixing in. To be precise, before T2 the traffic is mixed with traffic bound for
city center (that take a right before the T2). After T2, the crossing flow mixes with traffic
from Mr Franckenstraat, Graadt van Roggenstraat and traffic from the Singels that turns
right. Capacity of these road segments is too low to handle the demand which causes
extra congestion (I/C > 1,2 on road segement after T2) which spills back on the
Waalbrug.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 37
Map 3-11 Current situation Traianusplein 2
Waalbrug Besides the limited capacity on the junction T2 that has been elaborated on, also the
Waalbrug itself has limited capacity. The Prins Mauritssingel north of the Waalbrug has
enough capacity. Due to narrow lanes, the capacity of the Waalbrug is estimated at
2500 veh/h/direction (derived from traffic model). Predicted volumes are highest in
evening peak for both directions. These volumes will be considered normative for the
demand.
In southern direction the flow is predicted to be about 2300/h in the evening peak,
which implicates an I/C ratio of >0,9 which means congestion.
In northern direction, where 3 large flows (Singels, Germany, Franckenstr/Roggenstr/
Center) merge, the flow is estimated to be above 2500 veh/h which means even more
congestion. Capacity there is not going to be sufficient as based on current predicted
volumes.
From this micro analysis on the Traianusplein and the Waalbrug, conclusions that can be
drawn are that a major bottleneck is located on the Traianusplein (on T2), but that
improving this will have limited effect if the capacity of the Waalbrug stays at the
current level.
3.4.5 Parking In this paragraph, the parking facilities and policy in the city center of Nijmegen will be
discussed. Large parking facilities indicate major car destinations for people heading
towards the city center and thus determine for a large part the traffic pattern. Therefore,
they should be taken into account when analyzing the network.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 38
Parking supply Map 3-12 displays the large parking facilities for Nijmegen center, their capacities and
their main access routes. Also, the signs directing car users to their parking spot have
been displayed on the map.
When looking at the large parking garages, one can see that several of them are located
within the Singels. The Kelfkensbos and Eiermarkt garage are located in the northeast
part of this area, where the Molenpoort and Mariënburg garage are located in the
southern part. Other large parking facilities are located outside the Singels at the edge
of the city center.
Two of them are in the western part of the center, and two of them in the south. Also,
two large parking places are located south of the center and serve as parking spot for
people going to the center. New parking garages have been planned on the western side
of the center and will be located on the van Schaeck Mathon Singel (near the central
train station) and at the Hezelpoort a bit further north. These garages will replace P8 at
the Nassausingel which will be removed in the future. Other parking spaces are located
on the streets both within and outside the city center. The large parking facilities and
spaces on the streets are all owned and controlled by the municipality of Nijmegen.
Map 3-12 Parking location, routes and sign overview current situation
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 39
Parking demand When looking at the parking demand in the city center, one can see that there occur
large differences between different parts of the area. XTNT (2005) performed an
analysis of the parking balance in Nijmegen for the current and future (2015) situation.
They made a distinction in zones which are displayed in Map 3-13.
Map 3-13 Parking zones Nijmegen (XTNT 2005)
For people entering the city center of Nijmegen from the North, especially parking
facilities in zone 2, 4 and 6 are of interest. These are also the zones that affect the
Waalbrug route the most. Graph 3-3 shows the balance of parking demand and supply
in those zones on a working day for 2005.
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 40
Parking supply and demand (2005)
week day (15:00)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Home/Work Visitors Home/Work Visitors Home/Work Visitors
Zone 2 Zone 4 Zone 6
Par
kin
g s
pac
es Demand
Supply
Graph 3-3 Parking supply and demand 2005 (week day 15:00)
As the figure displays, there is a shortage of parking spaces in zone 4. This is the main
destination for most visitors and home/work traffic to the city center. This shortage can
be compensated by zone 2 and 6 where the earlier mentioned parking facilities exist.
Parking policy In the previous sections, the parking demand and supply for the city center of Nijmegen
have been pointed out. The steering mechanism for this balance is the parking policy
that is maintained by the municipality. This includes the pricing, location and purpose
(long stay / short stay) of the different parking facilities.
The current policy is aimed at locating parking as much as possible on the edge of the
city center and preferably on P+R facilities. Parking facilities within the boundaries of
the Singels should be reserved for (ultra) short stay. The streets in the city center have a
progressive tariff for this reason. An exception on this policy is the Eiermarkt garage
within the city center that has daycards only. However, daycards here are more
expensive than at locations on the edge of the city (6€ on Wedren/Julianaplein). The
policy is further expressed by the planned new parking garages on the western edge of
the city. This gives people from the west the opportunity to park their car before
entering the city center.
This policy has certain consequences for car users from different directions. With the
planned new parking garages, car users entering from the west can be accommodated
in parking facilities on that side of the center. Car users using the Waalbrug route to
enter the city center from the north and car users coming from the east have different
choices. Their main parking opportunities are located in the east of the center, within
the center and south of the center as displayed earlier in Map 3-12. An overview of the
tariffs of parking facilities in these areas has been displayed in Annex X. As can be seen,
the most attractive long stay alternative for people from the Waalbrug or east is on the
southern side of the center (Wedren/Julianaplein) with 6€ a day. This is much cheaper
than long stay in the northeast of the center (€10/day). For short stay parking the
facilities in the northeast of the center are most attractive. However, car users who are
Improving transport accessibility to Nijmegen center
April 19, 2010 41
not familiar with Nijmegen might still take the Singels to find their parking spot as the
signs to “Center” direct them to the Singels.
The reverse is true for car users entering from the south. As these users are for a large
part from within Nijmegen, they are most likely short stay visitors for the city center.
The southern side of the center does not provide a convenient short stay alternative, so
these users are also likely to use the Singels to find a parking spot in a different zone.
The patterns explained result in extra traffic, crossing flows and conflicts on the Singels.
Furthermore, the municipality implemented a dynamic parking i