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 (‘Multi- Modal Total People’) for the proposed development.  Database interrogated for sites based on the following criteria: Land Use 03 – Residential Category A – Houses Privately Owned Location Edge of Town Trip Rate Parameter Number of dwellings Range Selected by User 93 to 155 Dwellings (ie +/-25% of the proposed development) Actual Range 98 to 155 Dwellings Survey Days Monday to Friday Travel Plan No Calculation Factor1 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%.  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. Land UseUnit Trip Rates (Vehicles/per unit) Weekday AM Peak HourWeekday PM Peak Hour ArrivalsDeparturesArrivalsDepartures Residential1 Dwelling

 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: Project Trip Rates (Vehicles/per unit) Weekday AM Peak HourWeekday PM Peak Hour ArrivalsDeparturesTotalArrivalsDeparturesTotal Harlow Grange Clifton Gate

 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