Mm road works matching session
-
Upload
friso-metz -
Category
Technology
-
view
117 -
download
0
Transcript of Mm road works matching session
Leuven, NFP meeting, 26th October 2010
Mobility management and road maintenance
Dutch experiences and lessons learnedFriso Metz, KpVV
2
Message
“Eén calamiteitgeeft meer profijt dan tien jaar beleid”
“One calamitygives more benefitsthan 10 years of policy”
3
Issues
1. History & cases
2. Development of tools
3. Knowledge transfer
4
PART I: History & cases
5
Brief History of MM and road construction
I Before 2002: Rijkswaterstaat: typical engineering organisation
II 2002-2005: Experiments with MM
III 2005-2009: Focus on nuisance reduction
IV 2009-: Structural organisation: from projects to networks
6
Amsterdam: A10 West
Amsterdam: A9 Orbital
A6 Dutch Bridge
A16 Moerdijk bridge
Maastricht A2 corridor
7
I (-2002) Starting point
Rijkswaterstaat (RWS): National Road authority- Agency of the minstry of Transport and Water Management
- Engineering organisation- Road works: only the quality of the road works count- No focus on the impacts- ‘many small road works’, temporary closure of traffic lanes
8
Experiment 1: A10 West 2002
- Large maintenance project- Choice: long project with a ‘bit suffering’ vs short period of
much suffering- Closing large parts of the A10 West was more efficient and safer- Implementation during holiday time
Communication: - ‘huge traffic disaster’
Some MM measures
Results- A10 miracle: no traffic jam- People took their own responsibility- MM measures hardly used
9
Experiment 2: A9 orbital (2005)
Employees on time Employees in traffic
jam
10
Experiment 2: A9 orbital (2005)
- Reduced capacity/ closure of exits- Southeast business parks (50.000 employees) affected- RWS: even in holiday period, large traffic jams- Cooperation RWS + Verkeer.advies: involving business sector- Traffic management: alternative roads- Mobility management package
- Southeast-pass: all PT solutions in one pass- Personal travel advise- Webcams
- Goal: 5000 less cars each day- Results:17.000 employees received a pass; 3700 used it- 3700 less cars each day- Target has been reached: no extra nuisance
11
II (2002-2005) Experiments
Results:- High awareness that MM works- Many road works ahead- Minister of transport: reduce nuisance- MM obligation during large road works
High interest, but lack of coherence between:- Planning and design (construction process)- Traffic management- Mobility management- Communication- Guidelines (didn’t match / did not exist)
RWS (DVS): - MM team giving support to all projects- Development of tools- Cooperation with KpVV
12
III 2005-2009: Focus on nuisance reduction
RWS: guidelines MM during roadworkscoordination between guidelines communication – MM –traffic management – road maintenance
- terminology and termsTarget: max 6% extra hindrance during road works
Cooperation with NS (national railway company)Struggle: cost effectiveness
(Wegwijs A2)
13
IV 2009-: Structural organisation
- Toekan & Sumo method- ‘Minder Hinder’: integration of guidelines- Integration of MM in larger context- Measures:
1 Smart planning of road works
2 Smart design
3 Mobility Management
4 Traffic management
5 Communication
6 User oriented implementation
7 Regional cooperation
con
tract
14
A6 Dutch Bridge
Overall goals Less nuisance for road users
Traffic jams are not longer in the morning peak (A6 ->
Amsterdam)
No extra congestion at A27
1500 less cars during the morning peak
Target groups Car drivers using the A6 bridge >= 3 times/ week
Services
provided
Letter to car users (license plate registration)
Personal advise (FileMijden/ A6 pass
News letters, media, website, helpdesk
Mobility option
offered
Not travelling by car over the A6 bridge in the
morning rush hour
15
A6 Dutch BridgeSUMO Assessment levels results
seriv
es
A Useful activities Communication to 18.931 car drivers (100%)
B Awareness
C Usage of mobility services
6.496 car users show interest
(34%)
D Satisfaction with mobility services
Op
tion
s o
ffere
d
E Acceptance FileMijden: 2.875 aanmeldingen
(15 %)
A6 pass: 845 bestellingen (4%)
F Experimental behaviour
FileMijden A6: : 2.702 tries to avoid rush hours; 173 of them
drop off: (88 %)
A6 pass: 719 try it; 110 return it/ <12 times on the bridge
(85%)
G Satisfaction FileMijden A6 : 2.300 participants are satisfied
(80 %)
A6 pass: 597 participants are satisfied
(71 %)
eff
ects
H New behaviour temporary measures; more awareness of travelling outside rush
hours, teleworking and PT
I System impact FileMijden avg 425 less cars in peak hour (32% of total)
A6 pas avg 330 less cars in peak hour (24% of total)
16
A6 Dutch BridgeSUMO Assessment levels results
seriv
es
A Useful activities Communication to 18.931 car drivers (100%)
B Awareness
C Usage of mobility services
6.496 car users show interest
(34%)
D Satisfaction with mobility services
Op
tion
s o
ffere
d
E Acceptance FileMijden: 2.875 aanmeldingen
(15 %)
A6 pass: 845 bestellingen (4%)
F Experimental behaviour
FileMijden A6: : 2.702 tries to avoid rush hours; 173 of them
drop off: (88 %)
A6 pass: 719 try it; 110 return it/ <12 times on the bridge
(85%)
G Satisfaction FileMijden A6 : 2.300 participants are satisfied
(80 %)
A6 pass: 597 participants are satisfied
(71 %)
eff
ects
H New behaviour temporary measures; more awareness of travelling outside rush
hours, teleworking and PT
I System impact FileMijden avg 425 less cars in peak hour (32% of total)
A6 pas avg 330 less cars in peak hour (24% of total)
Rush hour avoidancedriving outside rush hours 33 %alternative route 17 %avoiding bridge all day 14 %using bridge in rush hour 13 %use of 11 %teleworking 8 %cycling 3 %cancelling meetings 1 %
17
A16 Moerdijk bridge: cost benefit analysis
Measures:Filemijden, information about alternative routes, P+R
(x € 1000) Costs Benefits ResultsFilemijden 840 1365 + PM + 525 + PMInformation 745 947 + PM + 202 + PMP+R 360 56 - 304
Totaal 1945 2368 423 + PM
18
Calculation of MM targets
1000
1. Scope
Extra 200 door goede publieks-
communicatie
3. Contractering
4. Uitvoerin
g
Tijd (indicatief)
Toenemende publiekscommunicatieCommunicatie nog hoofdzakelijk tussen direct betrokkenen en
participanten
5. Evaluatie en nazorg
2. Voorbereiding uitvoering
0- 9 mnd- 15 mnd- 24 mnd
Bruto verkeershinder
Ca. 6000 voertuigen
Toegestane
netto-hinder
Opgave VM
2000
Opgave MM
500
5000
1800
800 Verwachte netto-hinder
5000
1600
600 Gerealiseerd
e netto-hinder
2500 2400 2200
200
400 minder gehinderde
voertuigen door nog slimmer uitvoeren
400
Slim Bouwen
T o e kan
19
PART II: Development of tools
20
Toekan: 4 ways of influencing mobility behaviour
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0%
Cancelling of trips
Alternative route
Alternative time
Alternative travel modePotency for behaviour changePotency for behaviour change
21
Real time travel information
22
Toekan method
steps interaction with
1 getting the challenge clear road maintainers
2 market segmentation3 estimating potency of measures road maintainers
+
4 strategy for behaviour change companies + PT +
5 selection of measures logistics
analy
sis
exp
ert
sd
eci
ders
23
2 Market segmentation
Maastricht
24
3 Estimating potency of measures
Home to work
Business trips
Leisure trips
Freight transport
Alternative route
Alternative modality
Cancellingtrips
Alternative time
Home to work
Business trips
25
3 Estimating potency of measures
26
•Working with Toekan gives better results•Step by step approach makes clear what to do•No overkill of measures•Satisfied road users•Tool for cooperation with partners
Use of Toekan results in clear measures
27
PART III: Knowledge transfer
28
Differences between sites
Areas: near businessparks // near residential areasFocus: employers vs. Road usersPartners: companies/ PT operators/ travel card suppliers
Measures: PT passesTeleworkingPeak hour avoidanceCommunicationAlternative routesNew buslinesVanpools
29
Organisation
Structure and responsibilities
Maastricht
30
Organisation
Maastricht
31
Succes factors
•People who dared to experiment•Urgency is extremely high• It’s easier to change travel behaviour during a short period
•Political support•RWS: shift from technical department to user orientation•DVS team: sharing knowledge•Professionalisation: developing tools•Funding•Budget for evaluation•Partnerships with local governments + PT operators