improving transport accessibility to nijmegen center - project...

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


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


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


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


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.


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:


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


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


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.


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


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?”


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).


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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

improving transport accessibility to nijmegen center - project...

Documents