|
|
Answer
|
Frequency
|
|
1
|
More surveys required
|
7
|
|
2
|
More multi-modal surveys
|
5
|
|
3
|
Export results data into Excel more
easily
IC comment: Looked into this last
year, but we could introduce Excel
icon to make things clearer to users.
|
4
|
|
4
|
Save trip rate work in progress
IC comment: Looked into this last
year, expensive and potential to cause
confusion.
|
4
|
|
5
|
Ability to sort site lists by data field
column
IC comment: Good idea, could use "ascending" and "descending" icon
options
|
4
|
|
6
|
Option to calculate and display Employment
trip rates by hourly period
IC comment: Recurring question
raised by members, could put this into
options section.
|
3
|
|
7
|
Distinguish between solo drivers and "car
sharers" in counts
IC comment: Popular request from
users, occupants per vehicle are recorded
in raw data collection forms.
|
3
|
|
8
|
Large events surveys (e.g. football)
IC comment: Difficult and costly
to survey, but we could use a sample
and factor up results.
|
3
|
|
9
|
Clear comparison of before and after
Travel Plan transport generation
|
3
|
|
10
|
Improve search facility to make it more
flexible
IC comment: Could add new search
fields, but increasing danger of low
data sets.
|
3
|
|
11
|
Move "Location" to Main Parameters
screen
IC comment: Excellent idea, Location
is now of greater importance since
release of Good Practice Guide.
|
3
|
|
12
|
Introduce half-hourly trip rates for
all land use categories
IC comment: Cannot do this for
existing data. Potential issues with
compatibilty between old and new sites.
|
3
|
|
13
|
Multi-modal results (by all modes) on
a single screen for a given time period
IC comment: Technically feasible,
and would speed up process for users.
Possibly cost prohibitive.
|
3
|
|
14
|
Extend rank order lists to compare by
range of factors (location, etc).
IC comment: Many changes made to
rank order list recently, this could
be confusing.
|
3
|
|
15
|
Split Hotels category to make new "Budget
Hotels" etc. sub-categories
|
2
|
|
16
|
More Saturday surveys required
|
2
|
|
17
|
Combine different sub-categories in
trip rate calculations
IC comment: Would be a bad move
in terms of good practice, should be
avoided.
|
2
|
|
18
|
Change residential land uses to "shared
equity", "social landlord",
etc.
IC comment: Residential definitions
often brought up by users, a new review
may be required.
|
2
|
|
19
|
Split traffic counts by "staff", "visitor", "deliveries",
etc.
IC comment: Would mean a whole
new approach to survey methodology,
and would cost more per survey.
|
2
|
|
20
|
Produce new version of TRICS® Datacard
IC comment: Data would not be robust
enough if Good Practice guidance is
used.
|
2
|
|
21
|
Prevent surveys being lost when you
go back into Main Parameters
IC comment: We could have a "pop
up" message asking users to confirm
and warning of resetting of data.
|
2
|
|
22
|
More photographs of each site required
IC comment: May be webspace issues
over time, but numerous photos are
obtained during MM site visits.
|
2
|
|
23
|
Increase options for saving reports
(other than .TRI files)
IC comment: Saving reports to Word
files might be worth looking into.
|
2
|
|
24
|
Show time period by survey in rank order
lists (calculated by "busiest hour")
IC comment: Good idea, as long
as there are no screen space issues.
|
2
|
|
25
|
Automatically filter out sites appearing
more than once (re-surveyed sites)
IC comment: Would prefer existing
warning message to appear at earlier
stage (in Main Parameters?)
|
2
|
|
26
|
Make "Total People" the default
selection for multi-modal calculations
IC comment: Good idea, and would
not cost much.
|
1
|
|
27
|
Develop surveys to show journey purpose
IC comment: Would mean a fundamental
change in survey methodology, and would
cost more per survey.
|
1
|
|
28
|
More data for "affordable housing"
|
1
|
|
29
|
New land use category of "live/work
units"
|
1
|
|
30
|
New land use category of "small
craft"
IC comment: Not quite sure what
this is defined as.
|
1
|
|
31
|
Provide information within Development
Details on shift patterns
|
1
|
|
32
|
Typical car reduction rates that could
be expected by a Travel Plan
IC comment: Surely we need much
more Travel Plan data before we could
implement this.
|
1
|
|
33
|
Link multi-modal data to Census data
to allow easy estimate comparisons
IC comment: Not sure how this could
be done, seems complicated.
|
1
|
|
34
|
More surveys at city centre apartments
|
1
|
|
35
|
Allow user defined selection defaults
by region/area
IC comment: Goes against principles
of Good Practice Guide, encouraging
exclusion by region/area.
|
1
|
|
36
|
New land use category of "call
centre"
|
1
|
|
37
|
Include r2 trendline in rank order scatterplots
IC comment: Would require someone
with statistical experience to give
their opinion. Clarify existing fit
line?
|
1
|
|
38
|
Allow trip rate calculations for "Mixed" category
IC comment: We should not do this,
the very nature of mixed sites vary
by a great deal.
|
1
|
|
39
|
Land use categories should correspond
to national planning categories
IC comment: Our proposed use classes
document and link should deal with
this.
|
1
|
|
40
|
New land use category of "trade
only builders merchants"
IC comment: Is there a demand for
this?
|
1
|
|
41
|
Extend site lists to allow selection
of data fields viewed
IC comment: Existing columns could
be hidden, but would this contradict
Good Practice?
|
1
|
|
42
|
Show 85th, 70th, 50th etc. percentile
trip rates (user defined figure)
IC comment: probably easy to do
this, but would there be a real demand?
|
1
|
|
43
|
Provide details of annual data collection
programmes to users
IC comment: Would be easier once
web system is up and running.
|
1
|
|
44
|
Clarification on whether mezzanine floors
were included (by survey)
IC comment: This is not possible
for existing data, probably best to
leave this. Definitions now clearer.
|
1
|
|
45
|
Provide a link to local.live.com for
site location images
IC comment: Worth having a look
at this, and seeing if link can be
easily made (like Multimap).
|
1
|
|
46
|
Provide a list of member organisations
to members
|
1
|
|
47
|
Re-order Miscellaneous sites in a more
user-friendly way for searching
IC comment: See number 5, sorting
rows by description may help here.
|
1
|
|
48
|
Improve outputs so that all information
is captured
IC comment: All outputs are selected
by default, users have to deselect
what they do not want to output.
|
1
|
|
49
|
Undertake more new surveys rather than
re-surveys
IC comment: Hardly any re-surveys
are undertaken at the moment anyway.
|
1
|
|
50
|
Change parameter range in printouts
to the exact range selected by user
IC comment: I can see how this
may be mis-read, a change would be
easy to implement.
|
1
|
|
51
|
New land use category of "NHS walk-in
centre"
|
1
|
|
52
|
In "weekdays to include",
show number available by different date
ranges
IC comment: This seems impractical,
we already have a note displaying effect
of 8-year cut off.
|
1
|
|
53
|
More Travel Plan information at sites
|
1
|
|
54
|
New land use categories for smaller
retail developments
|
1
|
|
55
|
"Previous" and "Next" buttons
to move between development screens
IC comment: Good idea, can be frustrating
for users to cycle back a screen each
time at multi-sites.
|
1
|
|
56
|
Allow 85th percentile calculations for
smaller data sets
IC comment: Would advise against
this, this goes against Good Practice.
|
1
|
|
57
|
Improve Help facility
IC comment: Help facility is always
under review and is updated regularly.
|
1
|
|
58
|
IC comment: This could be easily
added to the planned use classes document
as a separate page.
|
1
|
|
59
|
Make system more "windows" based
rather than jumping screens
IC comment: This would be a step
backwards, this is the system we had
years ago.
|
1
|
|
60
|
Highlight "atypical" sites
that could potentially skew results
IC comment: This would depend on
a set of agreed definitions, could
be difficult and misleading.
|
1
|
|
61
|
"Lock" selections so user
can move around database without resetting
IC comment: May be possible (and
useful), but may be a complicated change.
Worth looking into.
|
1
|
|
62
|
Graphical output showing "bell
curve" distribution of data
IC comment: Not sure what this
means, someone with statistical experience
would need to comment.
|
1
|
|
63
|
Introduce selections by level of public
transport
IC comment: This would be a good
move, using the new PT services table,
but only a few sites could be used.
|
1
|
|
64
|
Explain Optional Parameter options (e.g.
hover information)
IC comment: We could add more hover
notes, but is there a great demand
for this?
|
1
|
|
65
|
Provide confirmation screen of selections
before calculating
IC comment: A simple summary screen
could be introduced, and toggled on/off
in options section. May be useful.
|
1
|
|
66
|
Option to permanently turn off "pop
up" advice notes
IC comment: Easily done, but would
people forget that they are available
if permanently disabled?
|
1
|
|
67
|
Provide direct link to definitions section
of Help files
IC comment: Good idea, we could
add mode, land use & calculation
parameter definition link buttons.
|
1
|
|
68
|
Warning in results screen when small
number of surveys used
IC comment: Good idea, could fit
this in with Good Practice. Warning
already used for rank order lists.
|
1
|
|
69
|
Results screen to show range and standard
deviation/variance of the data
IC comment: Would need someone
with statistical experience to review.
Danger of making things too complicated.
|
1
|
|
70
|
Speed up switching mode by displaying
mode icons at the top of the trip rate
results screen
IC comment: Quite a straightforward
and helpful amendment.
|
1
|
|
71
|
Indication of pass by/diverted trips
at a site
IC comment: Would not be possible
without major comprehensive research
- too much "datacard"-like.
|
1
|
|
72
|
Introduce trip rates for light goods
vehicles
|
1
|
|
73
|
More surveys at smaller employment/residential
sites
|
1
|
|
74
|
New land use category of "car parks"
|
1
|
|
75
|
New land use category of "rapid
response police stations"
|
1
|
|
76
|
Introduce modal split pie charts by
hour (or selected time period)
IC comment: This could possibly
be done by highlighting a time period
in the trip rate results screen.
|
1
|
|
77
|
Remove trip rate calculation option
from the Main Parameters section
IC comment: This would be in line
with Good Practice, and would encourage
more robust filtering.
|
1
|
|
|
|
TOTAL 105
|
|
|
Answer |
Frequency |
|
1 |
If you go back a step program resets
the selection settings
IC comment: Could be solved by
introduction of Q1 60. |
3 |
|
2 |
Extracting data into Excel causes a
problem
IC comment: This has recently been
improved. |
2 |
|
3 |
Not enough data for smaller developments |
2 |
|
4 |
Some land uses have zero sites in them
IC comment: This is being addressed
in the data collection programme. These
are new categories. |
2 |
|
5 |
Not enough data to provide a robust
assessment
IC comment: Good Practice Guide
discusses this. Increase size of data
collection programme? |
2 |
|
6 |
Difficult to clarify GFA/RFA by site,
as definitions over time not clear
IC comment: Definitions are now
much clearer, we cannot go back and
investigate old data. |
1 |
|
7 |
Practical to use TRICS® for people movements,
as regional density differs?
IC comment: Good Practice Guide
discusses this, with Location & population
etc. more important. |
1 |
|
8 |
Clarification of land use categories
for residential category confusing
IC comment: We may need to review
this again. |
1 |
|
9 |
Increasingly finding that TRICS® data
is not preferred way to assess trips |
1 |
|
10 |
OGV's included in Total Vehicle rates
can lead to double-counting
IC comment: We can make this clear
with a simple note on the screen. |
1 |
|
11 |
Some information missing in development
Details for sites |
1 |
|
12 |
Enormous variation in trip rates for
some land uses without apparent reason
IC comment: This is probably when
users are looking at small land uses.
More data would help with this. |
1 |
|
13 |
Need to repeat selection process for
each subsequent analysis
IC comment: This is probably inavoidable.
The nature of the system requires a
repeat of the process for clarity. |
1 |
|
14 |
No facility to extract data to Tempro
IC comment: Unaware of the level
of use of this program. Would think
that Excel is much more common. |
1 |
|
15 |
Large differences in trip rates when
removing one or two surveys
IC comment: This is inavoidable
when dealing with small data sets. |
1 |
|
16 |
Help system does not work when running
on a network
IC comment: Web-based system will
end this problem automatically. |
1 |
|
17 |
Problems understanding definitions
IC comment: Definitions have recently
been clarified. |
1 |
|
18 |
Lack of free-standing rural developments |
1 |
|
19 |
Too many surveys excluded through cut-off
date
IC comment: Is there the need for
a bigger data collection programme? |
1 |
|
20 |
Lack of data in town centre/edge of
town centre locations
IC comment: 2005 Location definitions
put many sites within "suburban
area". |
1 |
|
21 |
No distinction of offices (i.e. council
buildings) that attract public trips
IC comment: Good point, offices
land use sub-category could be split
to take this into account. |
1 |
|
22 |
Lack of weekend surveys at employment
sites
IC comment: Is there actually a
demand for this? Difficult to find
such sites. |
1 |
|
23 |
Inaccuracies in parameters (e.g. GFA)
which lead to incorrect results
IC comment: Reports of inaccuracies
are rare and are dealt with instantly,
no need to change our approach. |
1 |
|
24 |
Foodstores including non-food elements
are not highlighted
IC comment: Good idea, we could
split RFA into "food" and "non-food
elements" for new sites. |
1 |
|
25 |
Foodstores with or without PFS is hidden
away in Optional Parameters
IC comment: This could be brought
into the Main Parameters section if
considered important enough. |
1 |
|
26 |
Printing to file is difficult to find
in the system
IC comment: A clear button could
be introduced to allow quick access
to report saving. |
1 |
|
27 |
Insufficient data for reliable 85th
percentile calculations
IC comment: Good Practice Guide
deals with this. |
1 |
|
28 |
Option to copy to Excel is not made
clear in the system
IC comment: An Excel icon could
make the option easier to spot for
users. |
1 |
|
29 |
Confusion between half-hour data (Employment)
and hourly data
IC comment: We need to decide if
time periods need to be amended. |
1 |
|
30 |
Location categories are confusing
IC comment: Definitions are made
clear via a link button, we cannot
make things any clearer. |
1 |
|
31 |
Categorisation of land use categories
not clear on main menu screen
IC comment: A button linked to
land use definitions would make things
clearer for users. |
1 |
|
32 |
Not enough multi-modal data |
1 |
|
33 |
Lack of Saturday surveys |
1 |
|
34 |
Lack of a good range of GFA's at sites
IC comment: The more data that's
added, the better the range. |
1 |
|
35 |
Pop-up messages are annoying
IC comment: Users can disable per
session. A permanent "turn-off" option
might not be a good idea. |
1 |
|
36 |
Difficult to save output files in PDF
format
IC comment: This has recently been
addressed. |
1 |
|
37 |
Too many filtering variables
IC comment: We cannot start removing
users' choice of filtering options
without good reason. |
1 |
|
38 |
No facility for users to set their own
default values
IC comment: Such values may cause
more problems than they solve, as each
case is different. |
1 |
|
39 |
Not enough data |
1 |
|
40 |
Not enough data for modern sustainable
developments
IC comment: often difficult to
find when not many have been built.
We could look into this for next year. |
1 |
|
41 |
Survey start and end times differ by
land use category
IC comment: Characteristics of
land uses differ, this is unavoidable. |
1 |
|
42 |
Lack of a facility to allow calculations
by half hour or by hour
IC Comment: Our approach to half-hourly
and hourly time periods should be reviewed. |
1 |
|
43 |
When copying trip rates to Excel you
have to copy the whole table
IC comment: We cannot do much about
this, it is up to the users to cut & paste
where necessary. |
1 |
|
44 |
Rank order lists cannot be saved at
the same time as trip rate results screen
IC comment: We could look into
the possibility of printing both together.
Would be a useful option. |
1 |
|
45 |
Not easy to obtain 85th percentile figures
IC comment: It cannot get any more
straightforward than it is now. |
1 |
|
46 |
Printing and saving is complex - not
always clear what is being output
IC comment: We could make the output
selection boxes clearer for users. |
1 |
|
47 |
Difficult to distinguish HGV from MGV
vehicles in counts
IC comment: OGV definitions are
clear, and any changes would not be
compatible with existing data. |
1 |
|
48 |
No information for out of town apartments
in villages |
1 |
|
49 |
having to use larger developments to
calculate trips for smaller sites
IC comment: Good Practice Guide
covers this, more surveys at smaller
sites would help. |
1 |
|
50 |
Annoying problem with "Previous" and "Next" buttons
not always being aligned.
IC comment: This is a problem,
and can be fixed quite easily. |
1 |
|
|
|
TOTAL 55 |
|
|
Answer
|
Frequency
|
|
1
|
How will Travel Plans impact on people's
behaviour/trips made?
IC comment: Imagine this
may require a lot of data not
yet available within TRICS®.
|
12
|
|
2
|
Research into pass-by/diverted trips
|
12
|
|
3
|
Research into "linked/cross-visitation" for
different land uses
IC comment: This is something
that the existing multi-use report
does not cover.
|
10
|
|
4
|
Trip rates at mixed use developments
IC comment: Not sure what will
differ from existing multi-use research.
Possibly same as Q3 3.
|
5
|
|
5
|
Impact of restrictions on parking
IC comment: Parking provision clear
for sites throughout database. This
would assist.
|
3
|
|
6
|
Research into trip characteristics at
converted uses
IC comment: Small number
of "farm diversification" data
available, plus Countryside Agency
report.
|
3
|
|
7
|
Research into take-away sites
IC comment: Lack of data for this
land use in TRICS®.
|
2
|
|
8
|
Does affordable housing generate less
traffic than other types?
IC comment: Significant amount
of data in TRICS® that could help
with this issue.
|
2
|
|
9
|
Cross-reference TRICS® data to Census
data
|
2
|
|
10
|
Research into trip levels at car parks
IC comment: Car parks as opposed
to car parks at developments. No survey
data for this in TRICS®.
|
2
|
|
11
|
Accession software and accessibility
|
2
|
|
12
|
Impacts of out of town stores on existing
town centre patterns
IC comment: Only data at
actual developments is available
in TRICS®.
|
2
|
|
13
|
Before and after studies at sites where
TRICS® data was used in assessment
|
2
|
|
14
|
Affect on traffic of moving stadia out
of town (and other uses into centre)
IC comment: Lack of stadia
data available in TRICS®.
|
1
|
|
15
|
Car and service trips at small (individual)
retail units
IC comment: Limited data
within some existing land use
categories may be helpful.
|
1
|
|
16
|
Travel patterns for different age groups
|
1
|
|
17
|
Is the usage of 85th percentile trip
rates realistic?
|
1
|
|
18
|
School journeys:How many will be "school
run", and how many work-related?
IC comment: TRICS® cannot
currently distinguish this.
|
1
|
|
19
|
Diversion rates of traffic from existing
developments to new competitors
IC comment: Distance to nearest
similar site is present for data
in TRICS®, this may be useful.
|
1
|
|
20
|
Link between reduced parking provision,
Travel Plans, PT and car usage
IC comment: Much more Travel
Plan data would be needed if
TRICS® is to be used.
|
1
|
|
21
|
Research into pedestrian footfalls at
sites (travelled on foot/parked nearby)
IC comment: Current multi-modal
surveys deal with this. A split
between the two could be obtained.
|
1
|
|
22
|
Research into "reducing need to
travel" & "encouraging
sustainable travel"
|
1
|
|
23
|
Duration of stay at schools
IC comment: TRICS® does not currently
calculate duration of stay.
|
1
|
|
24
|
Containment effects of schools, shops
etc. within a large residential area
IC comment: TRICS® cannot
provide this information, only
survey data for individual developments.
|
1
|
|
25
|
Trip purposes by mode from residential
areas
IC comment: TRICS® does not
identify purpose in its trips.
|
1
|
|
26
|
Food superstore extensions
IC comment: Often brought up by
users, limited data on TRICS®, Q2 24
could help with this.
|
1
|
|
27
|
Trip generating characteristics of covered & outdoor
sales areas (e.g. garden centres)
IC comment: GFA for garden
centres includes both internal
and external areas, with no split
given.
|
1
|
|
28
|
Residential sites with little or no
parking
IC comment: Significant data
for residential development exists,
but may be lack of sites with
low parking.
|
1
|
|
29
|
Research into visitor and delivery trips
IC comment: "Visitors" as
opposed to Employees etc. are not specified
in TRICS®, but all OGV's are recorded.
|
1
|
|
30
|
Research into multi-modal trip rate
variation by land use and region
IC comment: Now may be a
good time for this research,
to confirm our Good Practice
guidance.
|
1
|
|
|
|
TOTAL 64
|