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