Local Use of TRICS

Report
Ewan Anderson, Fore Consulting Limited

Two examples of recent projects:
 Harlow Grange, Harrogate (124 dwellings).
 Clifton Gate, York (3,400 dwellings).

Look at where TRICS works well and where it is
currently limited.
 Is TRICS appropriate when working on large/strategic
sites?

Some questions for TRICS (and users) going
forward.

Proposed
development of 124
residential
dwellings.

Approximately
3.0km southwest of
Harrogate Town
Centre.

Immediately north
of B6162Otley Road.

TRICS used to derive average person trip rates (‘MultiModal Total People’) for the proposed development.

Database interrogated for sites based on the
following criteria:
Land Use
Category
Location
Trip Rate Parameter
Range Selected by User
Actual Range
Survey Days
Travel Plan
Calculation Factor
03 – Residential
A – Houses Privately Owned
Edge of Town
Number of dwellings
93 to 155 Dwellings (ie +/-25% of the proposed development)
98 to 155 Dwellings
Monday to Friday
No
1 Dwelling

Estimation of vehicular trip rates:
 Person trip rates from TRICS applied to the car driver mode share for
the local ward.
 Harlow Moor ward (‘Method of Travel to Work’, 2011 Census) = 64%.
Trip Rates (Vehicles/per unit)
Land Use
Residential

Unit
1 Dwelling
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Arrivals
Departures
Arrivals
Departures
0.146
0.521
0.391
0.221
TRICS is considered to work well for projects of this
type.
 Large number of similar sites available.
 Options to tailor search criteria to match proposed development.

Located:
 North of the A1237
Outer Ring Road at
Clifton Moor.
 Approximately
5.0km northwest of
York City Centre.

140 hectares of
land.

Proposed development of 3,400 residential
dwellings.

A draft allocation in the City of York Local Plan.

Sustainable new settlement, including:




Local facilities.
Social infrastructure.
Convenience retail.
Park & Ride and regular bus service to city centre.

Used the same approach to deriving person trips rates as for the
previous example.

Provides similar search criteria:
 Residential, Houses Privately Owned, Edge of Town, etc.

However, very few large residential sites within TRICS database.

Comparison of vehicular trip rates between the two projects:
Trip Rates (Vehicles/per unit)
Project
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Harlow Grange
0.146
0.521
0.667
0.391
0.221
0.612
Clifton Gate
0.181
0.534
0.715
0.384
0.243
0.627

Origin-Destination
Survey of proxy area.
 ANPR cameras
covered all vehicle
routes into Haxby
and Wigginton.
 Excluded ‘through’
traffic movements.
 Counted all
residential dwellings.


Site (Red)
Proxy (Blue)

Does the use of TRICS accurately provide trip
rates for large/strategic developments, at
present?

If not, can TRICS respond to this challenge
moving forward, or do we need to adopt a
different approach to deriving trip rates for
these sites?
 For example, by desegregating trips by journey
purpose.

Increasingly working on more large-scale, strategic sites.

Brought about by changes to the national policy
framework.
 Changes to planning policy through NPPF.
 DfT Circular 02/2013
 Sites being promoted through the Local Plan process.

If not, does the use of TRICS become a barrier to
development?
 Overestimating the traffic generation and traffic impact on the
highway network.
 Extent of study area to be assessed.
 Mitigation schemes required.

Does TRICS need to expand its database to
include more large/strategic sites?

If so, how feasible is the collection of accurate
data for these sites?
 The internalisation of trips.
 Multi-modal trip rates.
 Phasing and build-out (10- years).

And how can these sites be integrated into
TRICS?
Ewan Anderson, Fore Consulting Limited

similar documents