Dealing with traffic hindrance at Rijkswaterstaat : analysis of the current traffic hindrance approach of Rijkswaterstaat based on stakeholder perception and the changed relation with the market

Bouwhuis, G.J. (2016) Dealing with traffic hindrance at Rijkswaterstaat : analysis of the current traffic hindrance approach of Rijkswaterstaat based on stakeholder perception and the changed relation with the market.

[img]
Preview
PDF
1MB
Abstract:This research investigates the suitability of and potential improvements for the current traffic hindrance approach of Rijkswaterstaat in relation to their role as public oriented network manager and supervisor. The corresponding research question which is answered in this report is; “Is the current traffic hindrance approach of Rijkswaterstaat in line with its role of ‘public-oriented network manager’ and ‘supervisor’, and if not, what improvements are needed?” Theoretical framework: Traffic hindrance is a concept which is related to a broad range of topics. For this research, traffic hindrance is defined as “the combined objective and subjective negative effects of road works on safety, delays and the environment”. This broad definition means that a clear definition or delineation is needed in practice and that the broad nature of the concept makes it vulnerable for interpretation and misunderstandings. The role of public oriented network manager means that Rijkswaterstaat should focus on road users, the environment and local authorities. In addition, the focus should not only be on their ‘own’ (highway) network, but effects on other parts of the network should also be taken into account. The supervisor role should result in a focus on the tendering phase of a project because this is the main phase in which the client can influence the project outcome by assessing a number of quality aspects. Traffic hindrance is one of these aspects and can be assessed by multiple methods and criteria which means that a choice has to be made. The organisation of Rijkswaterstaat consists of multiple departments with different tasks which makes it important to clearly state which department is responsible for which action. Current practice: Analysis of the current practice shows that there are multiple methods and concepts related to traffic hindrance; Werkwijzer MinderHinder, ToeKan method, GGB à la Carte and the WBU. Verification in practice shows that these are not applied consistent and there is a lack of argumentation and description. A timeline of the different concepts shows that there is a focus on projects and that there seems to be overlap between the methods. The analysis of current practice also shows that there is no preference for an assessment method or traffic hindrance criterion. A lot of options are applied and a justification of the choices is not available. Stakeholder perception: Interviews with stakeholders of the A1 widening project show that there is no consistent definition of traffic hindrance among those stakeholders. A scoring exercise reveals that they see all proposed topics as part of traffic hindrance., although there are some differences in the topics which are rewarded with the highest and lowest score. An similar exercise for the experience of traffic hindrance does not reveal a focus point. The nature of experience with the traffic hindrance approach differs for the three identified groups; Rijkswaterstaat departments, governmental stakeholders and civil stakeholders. However they are all positive about the current approach, especially the GGB à la Carte method is mentioned as a positive example. Evaluation: Combining the information of the three earlier parts leads to the conclusion that the current traffic hindrance approach of Rijkswaterstaat is in line with its role of ‘public oriented network manager’ but not with the role of ‘supervisor’. The evaluation does not identify direct problems and the stakeholders have a positive view of the current approach and therefore direct change is not needed. Nevertheless, the SWOT-analysis shows a number of harmful characteristics which can be summarized by three risks; - A fuzzy, not consistent applied and overlapping approach - The Rijkswaterstaat definition of traffic hindrance is not suited for practice and is not in line with the stakeholder perception - There is no preference or guidance for the choice of assessment methods and traffic hindrance criteria. Recommendations: Based on the earlier determined risks, three recommendations for the current traffic hindrance approach of Rijkswaterstaat are identified: - Improve the traffic hindrance process by combining all current concepts and methods in one process. Add a start meeting to this process in which the procedure is attuned with the different departments of Rijkswaterstaat. Distinguish three groups of stakeholders and focus on a targeted approach for them. - Rijkswaterstaat should redefine traffic hindrance as “both subjective and objective negative effects of road works on delays (at the road works and the network) and on safety”. This definition is better suited for practice, more in line with the stakeholder perception and makes a clear distinction with environmental hindrance - Make/leave the choice for the assessment method and traffic hindrance criteria case specific. More support to make the right choice is needed and future research could focus on the creation of a decision supporting framework.
Item Type:Essay (Master)
Faculty:ET: Engineering Technology
Subject:56 civil engineering
Programme:Civil Engineering and Management MSc (60026)
Link to this item:http://purl.utwente.nl/essays/69520
Export this item as:BibTeX
EndNote
HTML Citation
Reference Manager

 

Repository Staff Only: item control page