Traffic livability and accessibility measures

Study culminating in a preferred alternative

In 2021, the Municipality of Nuenen and the Province of North Brabant will together seek measures to maintain and, where possible, improve Nuenen's traffic livability and accessibility. If we do not take measures, traffic livability and accessibility in Nuenen will deteriorate due to increasing traffic. We therefore examined the problem and devised solutions.

On Nov. 4, 2021, the city council adopted the preferred alternative: a package of measures based on the preferred scenario adopted by the council before the summer. We are coordinating this package regionally. We will see if all the measures, in the various municipalities, together have the desired effect. If so, we will make financial agreements with the region and the province. The results will be presented to the city council. After that, the outline design will be worked out in more detail for each sub-project in the coming years. The measures will be implemented in the period until 2030.

The picture below shows briefly the process we went through to arrive at this package of measures and how to proceed.

Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative is a package of measures that is good for traffic livability and accessibility in Nuenen. The package is based on the preferred scenario adopted by the council before the summer. During the summer, the preferred scenario was further examined and developed into a preferred alternative. A first sketch design and a rough cost estimate were made. 

On November 4, 2021, the City Council adopted the preferred alternative. The council proposal and advisory report with the preferred alternative are on the website nuenen.councilinformation.nl (agenda item 9). 

Why this package of measures?

If we do nothing then the situation in Nuenen will get worse. We live in a growth region. This means more housing and more employment in this area and therefore more traffic. The municipality and province have searched for a package of measures with which we can maintain and, where possible, improve traffic livability and accessibility. With this package of measures we are focusing on the mobility transition by creating good bicycle and public transport connections. These measures slow down the growth of car traffic. 

• The total package of measures (including the construction of express bike lanes and good public transport connections) dampen the growth of car traffic, improving accessibility.
• Accessibility improves as car traffic gets a new route to the A270, by opening the bus lanes at Geldropsedijk.
• Traffic noise will increase if we do nothing. Polls showed that many residents are bothered by this. The package of measures reverses this deterioration. On balance, traffic measures alone will improve the situation for Nuenen. The package of measures also includes a noise barrier near the A270, which will further reduce traffic noise.

Main measures preferred alternative

• Modify Smits van Oyenlaan so that the road design better suits the 50km/h speed limit.
• On the northern section of Smits van Oyen Avenue, public transportation is given greater priority at the intersections.
• A (fast) bicycle route between Gerwen and the central bus stop Nuenen.
• Improve (regional) bicycle connections, including through the construction of several bicycle tunnels.
• Opening of bus lanes A270 near Geldropsedijk (to and from Eindhoven only) to motorized traffic.
• The speed on the A270 remains unchanged. 
• A noise barrier along the A270 (on the side of the Nuenen core).
• A P&R in Gerwen.
• Smart traffic system and communication devices.
• Greening of roadsides.

An overview of all measures of the preferred alternative (visualized in a Map of the area) can be found in the"poster package of measures VKA".

Council decision preferred alternative

The council adopted the advisory report and the preferred alternative. The board has been instructed (with an amendment) to make regional and financial agreements based on this package of measures. The council then expects a more detailed proposal regarding the liveability, finances and prioritization/planning. The council gives priority to the work around Smits van Oyenlaan and the A270. The council also expects feedback from the college if the developments at Eeneind affect the continuation of this study of traffic liveability and accessibility.

Follow-up after adoption

Now that the preferred alternative has been established, regional coordination is taking place. Our neighboring municipalities are also conducting studies. The results of those studies will also affect Nuenen and vice versa. Measures for traffic flow in Eindhoven, for example, are important for traffic flow in Nuenen. We are also discussing the costs of the package of measures with the province. The province will make a contribution to this. Over the next few years we will work out the various measures in sub-projects. 

Preferred scenario

On July 8, 2021, the city council chose a preferred scenario to ensure the accessibility and traffic livability of Nuenen in the future (look here for all council documents, agenda item 14, including the advisory report describing the scenarios). The council has thus given interim direction in the study of traffic livability and accessibility. In the preferred scenario, alternatives for transport modes are given priority in order to temper further growth in car traffic and the associated inconvenience in Nuenen.

Core elements are express bicycle routes, strengthening the connection for public transport and opening the bus lanes on the A270. Supporting these are transfer facilities and smart measures. Additional measures, for example with regard to spatial quality (e.g. greening) and noise reduction, will also be included in the aforementioned further elaboration.

So the council did not opt for additional lanes or speed increases on Smits van Oyenlaan. An eastern bypass around Nuenen is also off the table.

How did we arrive at the preferred scenario?

In the first phase of this substudy, the following steps were taken:

• Problem analysis
  • Data/traffic research
  • Consulting a working group with residents, interest groups, neighborhood and village councils, VVN and Cyclists Union
  • Online survey of bottlenecks about traffic livability 
• Building scenarios
  • Scenario 1A: Focus on bicycle and public transportation on existing roads
  • Scenario 1B: room for the car on existing roads
  • Scenario 2: a new route (eastern peripheral road)
• Assessing scenarios
  • Assessment for goals, effects, costs and support (working group and 2nd online survey)
• Council Decision
  • Scenario 1A with opening of the bus lanes on the A270 and some modifications.

Participation

The study is largely based on desk research and model calculations. These are mostly factual research results. This is important for making choices for the future. However, the experiences and perceptions of residents and business owners also matter. That is why we consulted them at multiple times and in multiple ways. We did not seek consensus. After all, it is an issue in which there are many competing interests.

We do provide insight into what was contributed during participation. Where is support and where is less support? Where are people divided and where do we see a lot of agreement? What interests have been put forward? Ultimately, the province and city council make a decision. They have to make an overall assessment. The input of residents and entrepreneurs is one of the aspects they weigh.

Phase 1: Preferred scenario

• We conducted an online survey on bottlenecks and traffic livability. We received 551 responses to this. The perception of these residents was a valuable addition to the problem analysis. View the results of the online questionnaire (pdf)link to pdf file
• We set up a working group that we consulted in drawing up building blocks and scenarios. The working group includes residents, interest groups, neighborhood and village councils, VVN and the Cyclists' Union.
• We submitted the three scenarios to residents online. The results of this online questionnaire can be found here.

Phase 2: Preferred alternative.

Neighborhood Council Eeneind, Village Council Gerwen, the Cyclists Union and VVN provided input during two working workshops to further develop a preferred alternative.

What is the problem?

We don't like standing in traffic jams, but we still like to use the car. This applies to many residents in Nuenen and the region. The result is congestion, nuisance and cut-through traffic. Nuenen residents also experience this, according to surveys for the Environmental Vision. More municipalities experience the same problems, especially near Eindhoven.

What is the region doing in terms of mobility?

In the Bereikbaarheidsagenda Zuidoost-Brabant, 21 municipalities and the province are working on mobility solutions. In this, it is agreed which measures are needed. New (highways) around Eindhoven are not on the long-term agenda (2040). More bicycle traffic, public transport and smart mobility do help keep residents of the region mobile, but are not enough. Measures for motorized traffic are also necessary, at the so-called bundle routes (roads intended to open up residential areas and facilities and 'bundle' regional traffic there).

What does the traffic livability and accessibility study involve?

An initial (regional exploratory) study shows that bundle routes can solve some of the problems for traffic livability and accessibility. This calls for further studies of what those existing roads should look like so that they can keep traffic out of neighborhoods and provide adequate flow. 

What is "traffic livability"? 

By traffic livability we mean: elements affected by traffic on the livability, well-being and health of Nuenen residents. Think of the level of particulate matter, noise and vibrations. But also the spatial quality of and near a road. It can be direct nuisance from traffic, such as noise pollution, smell, poor crossability or unsafety of the bund routes. Indirect nuisance on other routes is also possible, for example stealth traffic due to poor functioning of those bundle routes. Air quality due to traffic is also an issue that residents may be concerned about. We do not want livability to deteriorate in the coming years.

What area is being studied, how large is the study?

The Nuenen sub-study deals with the bundle routes in Nuenen, i.e. mainly the Smits van Oyenlaan and the A270. Many people use the bundle routes and/or live near these roads. The study therefore has a larger impact area: the (shortcut) routes through Nuenen's neighborhoods and the region. We also look at opportunities to improve the spatial structure (urban planning), for sustainability and alternative modes of transport.

red = Robust Edge Structure (A50-A2-A67-N279)

blue = Bundle routes (N615, A270, Ring Road and Kennedylaan)

Green = Intersections on the N279

green dotted = research area Nuenen

Why are we doing this study?

Traffic is increasing. Not only in Nuenen but throughout the region accessibility is under pressure. The so-called Ruit (new road to be constructed) was not supported by the regional municipalities. But if we do nothing, the quality of life and accessibility will come under further pressure from increased traffic.

Who owns/chairs the study?

The municipality of Nuenen is the initiator of the study. The province of North Brabant is the cooperating partner. Together they make the final decision on a package of measures. There is plenty of regional coordination, especially with neighboring municipalities that are also conducting studies of "their" bundle routes. After all, Nuenen's bundle routes only really work well if the bundle routes of Eindhoven, for example, also flow well.

What do the province and municipality want to achieve with the study?

The goal of the Nuenen sub-study is to maintain and where possible improve the traffic livability and accessibility of Nuenen. We want to achieve this by:

• Steer traffic from neighborhoods to bundle routes;
• Improved flow of bundle routes;
• Thereby maintaining and where possible improving traffic livability;
• Improve the "other" environmental qualities around the bundle routes;
• Not drawing new traffic into the area.

What is the result of the study?

The study resulted in a, by province and municipality, supported and realistic preferred alternative of (traffic) measures with a sketch design and a rough cost estimate. 

Why is the Diamond not an option (anymore)?

An earlier initiative by the province for a Northern Peripheral Road/Ruit/Northeast Corridor did not make it in the region. Many regional municipalities opposed the arrival of a Ruit. In response, the region made agreements in 2016 for measures without such a road (Accessibility Agreement). Part of this is that we will bundle traffic more on so-called bundle routes and take measures to improve accessibility on those bundle routes. The Nuenen study is one of the five partial studies. 

Is the Diamond off the table for good?

The current regional agreements (Accessibility Agreement) extend to 2030. Until then, the Ruit is basically off the table. Whether a new northern road will be on the agenda after that we do not know for sure. In an administrative environment, that is difficult to predict, but as it looks now, it is not. We don't want to wait with measures because livability and accessibility will deteriorate in the next 10 to 20 years. The measures resulting from the study are always good for Nuenen. Even if the Ruit comes back on the administrative agenda in the future. That is one of the arguments for the proposed package of measures. 

What bundle routes are there in Nuenen?

Because mobility is a regional issue, bundle routes have been agreed upon regionally. The Nuenen bundle routes are the A270 and the Smits van Oyenlaan. The relocation of the bundle route, which now runs along Smits van Oyenlaan, to a (new) Eastern Peripheral Road has also been examined. This was dropped as an option before summer 2021. 

Why is Europalaan not a bundle route?

Europalaan is not a bundle route. The Europalaan runs parallel to the A270. Now it is the case that outbound traffic (from Helmond or Geldrop) takes the shorter route via Europalaan-Sterrenlaan due to congestion on the A270. Due to congestion on the Europalaan, Nuenen residents again tend to drive via Boord. The problem therefore lies with the congestion on the A270. If this bundle route works better, it may eventually provide relief on Europalaan and Boord.

Are we the region's drain?

Nuenen is located in a growth region. That has many advantages, but also some disadvantages such as the increase in traffic. Because of Nuenen's location, some of that regional traffic passes through Nuenen. At the same time, Nuenen residents also drive through other municipalities to reach their destinations. So the concerns about accessibility do transcend municipal boundaries. Nuenen and other regional residents want good accessibility, including by car. This causes them inconvenience as well as problems in places where livability is under pressure. Together, the regional municipalities can help prevent the uncontrolled deterioration of traffic quality and accessibility. 

Why should we in Nuenen solve the problem of the big city of Eindhoven?

We should not and cannot solve Eindhoven's problem. That is why Eindhoven is also conducting a partial study. The neighboring municipality is also investigating how to improve traffic flow in Eindhoven, via the Eisenhowerlaan, Ring Road and Kennedylaan bundle routes. At the same time, traffic simply does not stop at municipal borders either. The bundle routes in Nuenen cannot function well if those in Eindhoven do not function well, and vice versa. This dependency applies to all regional relationships, by the way. Nuenen residents and residents of other municipalities want to be able to reach the city easily for work, school and leisure. That is why it is so important to have coordination in the region. 

Who ultimately decides on the measures?

Nuenen City Council decides on the roads within its own territory, there is no body that forces Nuenen to realize measures. The A270 falls under the province's jurisdiction.

What is the role of the region?

The results are coordinated with the neighboring municipalities. A test is carried out to determine whether the chosen measures fit within the established frameworks (regional exploratory study) and whether the measures together have the desired effect. To find this out, the municipalities together make a calculation of all parts of the bundle routes. For the realization of measures, the region will provide subsidies from the Accessibility Agreement.

Are residents involved in the study?

The study is largely based on desk research and model calculations. Recommendations are thus based primarily on these factual research results. But of course the experiences, perceptions and opinions of residents are also important. We have therefore consulted them in various ways. In the Participation paragraph (above) you can read more about how we did this.

How did we go from a preferred scenario to a preferred alternative?

We investigated the traffic and livability effects of the preferred scenario. By means of model calculations the future traffic flows were mapped out when implementing the preferred scenario. On this basis, the effects on noise and air (fine dust and nitrogen) were investigated. Choices were then made for a coherent package of measures: the preferred alternative. An initial sketch design was made of this package of measures to clarify what the plans could look like and what the package of measures would cost. These are not yet final designs. 

How and why do we measure livability and accessibility? 

Traffic counts are taken on a regular basis. These provide insight into the current traffic picture. Measuring particulate matter, for example, is also very interesting, but also complicated. To get an idea of whether the current level of air quality meets the standards, studies have already been conducted by the citizens' initiative AiREAS. This also involves RIVM, GGD and TNO. 

Particulate matter levels fluctuate enormously. On average in Nuenen this is now well below the legal standard and close to the WHO standard (the WHO aims to halve the legal standard). AiREAS has now entered phase 2 on a regional basis to gain more insight - in addition to the effects of air traffic and livestock farming - into the local influence of traffic in practice. The data from these measurements can be viewed by everyone via the AiREAS website.

How and why do we calculate livability and accessibility? 

The answer is quite simple. We cannot measure into the future. The future situation can only be predicted properly with traffic and environmental models. This is a legally accepted tool that does forecasts of background values plus the effects of traffic.

The models have been compared with traffic counts (current situation), but we are looking for measures that are future-proof. We investigated how many cars are driving now and in 2030 and how big the environmental impact of traffic and other sources is according to the calculations. This also allowed us to compare the effects of scenarios and give substantiated advice on which package of measures works best and what the effects will be in the future.

What is the impact of traffic on air and noise?

That depends on what effects you are looking at, for example, the effect of particulate matter, nitrogen or noise. Traffic is certainly not the only source of nuisance and air pollution. However, noise pollution is dominant and related to traffic. This nuisance is perceived. Particulate matter and nitrogen pollution are different. 

Particulate matter lies like "a blanket" over the Netherlands and is only to a small extent determined by local sources. In other words: the background value (industry, livestock farming) is dominant, traffic worsens the situation to some extent. 

For nitrogen, the influence of road traffic is greater than for particulate matter. For the situation in 2030, the contribution to the concentration at a distance of 10 meters from the roads increases to a maximum of 4 μg NO2/m3 along the A270/N270 and to a maximum of 3 μg NO2/m3 in the built-up area of Nuenen (along the Smits van Oyenlaan). The level of the NO2 background concentration is 10 to 11 μg/m3 in the plan area in 2030. Local road traffic thus adds (at most about) 30% to this.

What does the preferred alternative advisory report say about particulate matter? 

The fine dust issue has received special attention because we know that fine dust poses health risks. The air quality study conducted in 2021 shows that particulate matter is not a bottleneck. The annual average concentration levels for PM10 and PM2.5 remain well below the legal limits under the Air Quality Act throughout the planning area. In the current situation, however, the WHO advisory value for the smallest particles (PM2.5) is still exceeded. The prognosis is that air quality will improve toward 2030 due to cleaner road traffic, industry, livestock farming, and so on. Concentrations will fall below current levels by 2030.

For more information, see the full report Air Quality Study Bundle Routes Nuenen.

With the proposed package of measures, the situation improves and we meet the legal standard and WHO limit.

What does the preferred alternative advisory report say about nitrogen?

The annual average concentration level for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) remains well below the legal limits under the Air Quality Act throughout the planning area. The situation is improving autonomously. This means that - regardless of the measures - it will be better than it is now. Emissions from road traffic are decreasing towards the future, partly due to electrification and renewal of the vehicle fleet with cleaner gasoline and diesel engines. The effect of nitrogen deposition on Natura 2000 areas has been calculated: there are no adverse effects on nitrogen deposition in those areas, provided/because the speed on the A270 is not reduced. 

For more information, see the reports:

• Nitrogen deposition study Bundelroutes Nuenen
• Air quality study Bundle Routes Nuenen

Does the study consider new construction plans?

In the study, we examine measures that work in the future situation. To properly assess that situation, we include the established plans. Consider the building development of Nuenen West and the recreational developments at Gulbergen. The expected effects of these developments on traffic are therefore included in the models. 

Was the plan for a logistics center on Eeneind included in the study?

This building plan was not known at the start of the study. Therefore, the arrival of a logistics center was not included. There is now a permit application. Although the permit has not yet been granted, we are including the intended development in the follow-up. The results of all regional studies are currently being calculated. This possible development will be included in that calculation. Incidentally, the Collse Hoefdijk falls outside the scope of the study. 

Does the study consider the effects of corona?

That's trickier. We simply don't know yet what the lasting effects are on traffic. A national task force is working on that. The expectation is that people will continue to work from home, but the extent of the effect on traffic is still uncertain. The impression is that an improving economy will soon bring mobility back to its old level.

Aren't we drawing more traffic to Nuenen with the proposed measures?

We want to concentrate traffic on Smits van Oyenlaan and the A270. We do not want to attract extra regional traffic through Nuenen. The various scenarios have also been assessed for this. The preferred scenario established before the summer of 2021 has the least traffic-attracting effect. In that scenario other modalities have been used by improving bicycle and public transport connections. These measures temper the growth of car traffic. 

Does the package of measures solve all the problems?

No, unfortunately there is no ideal solution. Even a Diamond would not solve all the problems. The increase in traffic is a social problem that cannot simply be solved by the government. The real solution requires a mobility transition. The preferred alternative pushes for this, but it is not enforceable. Nevertheless, this package of measures tempers the growth of automobile traffic and its concomitant effects. It does not solve the problem, but it does ensure that the problem does not increase and in parts is less severe.

Will the package of measures make things better for everyone?

The study shows that the package of measures of the preferred alternative will improve accessibility and traffic livability and thus meet the objective of the study. The study looked at the total effect for Nuenen. That it improves on balance does not mean it improves for everyone, but it does mean it improves for a large(er) group. Traffic will increase in some places, for example at part of Geldropsedijk. Smits van Oyenlaan becomes quieter, but keeps a high traffic volume. In both cases, legal standards are still met, but that does not alter the fact that in further elaboration in sub-projects, we are also looking at nuisance-reducing measures.

Why does the speed on the A270 remain unchanged?

There are a number of reasons why the speed is not reduced:

• Reducing speed produces adverse traffic effects. When speed is reduced, more car users choose other routes. We then see an increase outside the municipality (Geldrop-Mierlo) but also within Nuenen (Europalaan). This appears from calculations. These are undesirable effects, because we actually wanted to concentrate traffic on the A270.  
• Because of this shift in traffic, there will be more traffic near Natura 2000 areas (Strabrechtse Heide and Beuven). Calculations show an increase in nitrogen deposition there. This creates legal obstacles. 
• Reducing the speed does not provide an audible benefit. A noise barrier does provide an audible benefit. This is why the package of measures includes a noise barrier on the A270 at Nuenen-Zuid (between Smits van Oyenlaan and Geldropsedijk). This is a costly solution but one with a demonstrable positive effect for a large part of Nuenen. 

Are noise measures needed at the bundle routes?

Studies show that they are not legally necessary. When the measures of the preferred alternative are implemented, the noise levels remain below the standards for the expected traffic flows in 2030. Noise measures are therefore not necessary, but desirable. Polls among residents showed that the A270 in particular causes a lot of noise pollution. That is why the package of measures includes a noise barrier after all. That noise barrier ensures noise reduction. 

What will the noise barrier on the A270 look like?

The preferred alternative assumes a 4-meter-high concrete screen. This is a starting point for now, but in the next phase we will look further into the height, shape and with materials. For now, it is important that the beneficial effects of such a screen have been demonstrated with calculations. The costs are now clear and the measure is included in the preferred alternative.

Will noise measures also be taken at Smits van Oyenlaan?

Smits van Oyenlaan also meets the standards. Yet here too we hear from residents that the road causes noise pollution, partly because people drive too fast. For this reason we will not increase the speed and will improve the design of the road to the maximum speed of 50 km/u. In addition, during the redesign of Smits van Oyenlaan we are still looking for further optimization, such as the use of quiet asphalt or other noise-reducing measures.

What will the package of measures cost the municipality?

We do not know that at this time. The study provided a rough cost estimate of the package of measures. The package has not yet been developed into final designs and reconstruction plans. Also, the municipality does not bear these costs alone. Part will be paid from a regional subsidy, but the province will also contribute. Province, region and municipality are discussing this.