Frequently Asked Questions - European Commission · 2016. 9. 28. · Visitors Overview 0 1,000 2,000 0 1,000 2,000 1 Jan - 31 Jan 1 Mar - 31 Mar 1 May - 31 May1 Jul - 31 Jul 1 Sep

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT Directorate B - Trans-European transport networks & Smart transport B.1 - Trans-European transport network policy, Research coordination & European radio navigation plan (ERNP)

Invitation to Tender MOVE B1/2010-379-1

"THE CONTINUATION OF THE TRANSPORT RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE CENTRE"

Contract notice: JO S 233-355760

Frequently Asked Questions

Concerning section III.2.3, on page 28,

- For each category of staff involved in the project, the tenderer must specify:

− The total labour costs;

− The daily rates and total number of days (man/days) each member of staff will

contribute to the project;

− Other categories of costs, indicating the nature of the cost, the total amount, the

unit price and the quantity.

Question 1: What do you mean by “category of staff”? Does this refer to seniority categories

(e.g. junior expert, expert, senior expert) or to the type of work (e.g. researcher/engineer,

journalist/writer, web developer….)?

Answer: The category may be defined by seniority as well as the type of work. The daily

rates may vary depending on both.

Question 2: What do you mean with “total labour costs”? In the bullet below this one, you

ask for the daily rates, thus we do not understand if there is a difference between the “total

labour costs” and the “daily rates”, and if so, why?

Answer: "Total labour costs" in the mentioned section are meant to represent the sum of

the costs of staff members in one category of staff. Daily rates correspond to how much an

individual staff member in that category costs per day.

Question 3: Why is it necessary to specify the daily rates for each member of staff, when

above it is asked to specify the information for each category of staff?

Question 4: Why is it necessary to specify the total number of days for each member of staff,

when above it is asked to specify the information for each category of staff?

Answer 3 and 4: This information shall allow the Commission to understand how the labour

costs are budgeted. It is necessary i.a. in order to evaluate the tenders in respect of the

criteria 3 "Management: Appropriate management structure and sound and realistic

allocation of financial and human resources (including the management of the TRKC Support

Network)"

Question 5: Regarding the Financial Proposal is there a specific template that Tenderers are

required to use?

Answer: No

Question 6: Could you please clarify whether the evidence/proof for Selection Criteria

(Economic & Financial Capacity and Technical & Professional Capacity) should be listed

within the Administrative Proposal?

Answer: Yes

Question 7: In the Exclusion Criteria, the Declaration of Honour does not seem to apply to

Legal Entities and only refers to natural persons (all written in the first person which is

misleading for company representatives who sign on behalf of companies). Should

Tenderers use another template?

Answer: The tenderers shall use the provided template. The attention is drawn to the

section IV.1.3, point 3. of Tender specifications.

Question 8: On page 3 of the Tender Specifications, it is mentioned that the current contract

ended in October 2010. Can you please provide us with the final report and details of the

current contractor?

Answer: As mentioned in the tender specifications in point I.12.2, "the previous actions of

TRKC and its predecessors were useful tools to gather data and compile available

information under one single portal for all transport research activities conducted at EU and

Member State level". However, the purpose of this tender is to bring TRKC to another level

of development. The description of work intended, results to be obtained and the existing

gaps are fully described in the tender specifications and identifiable in the current website.

Therefore, no further information is needed to draft the proposal or will be taken into

consideration by the contracting authority when evaluating the bids.

Question 9: On page 4 of the Tender Specifications, in Section I.3, regarding Collection, is the

data collection process intended to be carried out online?

Answer: The tenderer is expected to analyse and promote the results of all past and ongoing

transport research projects carried out under FP6 and FP7 and eventually from the next

Framework Programme. The tenderer will propose its own approach to carry out the

collection process in order to fulfil this task, taking into account that some projects may not

hand their results proactively. This is notably part of the Technical award criteria - Technical

quality of the tender: Quality of methodology to collect and analyse programme and project

data (page 34 of the Tender Specifications).

Question 10: On page 5 of the Tender Specifications, in Section I.6, regarding the criteria

used to proceed to project groupings, can you please provide us with the list of the current

criteria used?

Answer: The criteria for the current groupings are easily identified in the TRKC website, in

the Project & Analysis section under Transport Themes sub-section. There is a clear

definition for all the existing project groupings, which are currently presented into themes.

Question 11: On page 7 of the Tender Specifications, in Section I.12 (final line), regarding

‘the current gaps’ – can you please let us know what these gaps refer to?

Answer: "The current gaps" mentioned are implicit in Section I.12.3 (WP 3: Dissemination

Activities).

Question 12: On page 7 of the Tender Specifications, in Section I.12.1 (final line), regarding

‘possibly new’ initiatives – can you please expand on which other initiatives are considered

in this context?

Answer: In the sequence of the initiatives mentioned on page 7, the concept of "possibly

new" initiatives refers to any initiative that is being or may be developed by the European

Commission and/ or Member States in the future and which is susceptible to influence

transport research activities carried out in the ERA.

Question 13: On page 10 of the Tender Specifications, in the Thematic Research Summaries

Section – is content expected to be originally drafted in all 3 languages or in EN and then

translated in the other two?

Answer: The Thematic Research Summaries will have to be available online in the 3 working

languages of the European Commission. In order not to multiply the task of both the drafting

team and those responsible for the quality control, the tenderer might opt to draft one

linguistic version of the Thematic Research Summaries and translate it into the other two.

This also applies to the Compendium of Transport Research Funding and the Policy

Brochures.

Question 14: On page 11 of the Tender Specifications, in Section I.12.3, regarding current

web statistics, we would like to receive those sets of statistics.

Answer: Please refer to annex I of FAQ (below).

Question 15: On page 13 of the Tender Specifications, in the section on Participation in

conferences and events and networking activities, the tenderers are asked to outline how a

‘network’ will be gathered to cover all of ERA. Is this another network in addition to the TRKC

Support Network? If so, are these two networks currently in place and working with the

current contractor or is this considered a new feature on which all Tenderers will be equally

evaluated on?

Answer: The term network in page 13 of the tender specifications should be interpreted as a

network of contacts, not as an additional network to be created. The purpose is to have

frequent contacts not only with the research community as it stands today, but to increase

those contacts as much as possible, especially with the ERA countries which, nowadays,

show a lack of interest on transport research activities.

Question 16: On page 15 of the Tender Specifications, in Section I.15, regarding the

integration of PRESS4TRANSPORT products into the portal, is there a current collaboration

between the TRKC and the PRESS4TRANSPORT project? Can we receive details of this

workflow? Why is material from PRESS4TRANSPORT to be integrated into the TRKC portal?

Answer: There is no particular workflow between PRESS4TRANSPORT and TRKC. Currently,

PRESS4TRANSPORT is submitting items through the interactive menu (project forms, events,

news), and is sending press releases per email to the TRKC. TRKC checks the submitted items

and publishes them on the portal. There is a need for collaboration between the TRKC and

PRESS4TRANSPORT in order to avoid duplication of efforts which inevitably cause a waste of

time and human and financial resources. Not all the material from PRESS4TRANSPORT will

have to be integrated in the TRKC portal, only material related to transport research

activities.

Question 17: Is it expected that Newsroom developments are introduced in close

collaboration with Press4 Transport: if so, who is the project manager responsible for P4T?

Answer: Please refer to answer to question 16.

Question 18: Will we have access to all P4T networks?

Answer: Taking into account answer to question 16, such access is not needed.

Question 19: Some thematic summaries have not been updated recently. Has there been a

process for dealing with the information from projects that has come in since the last

published updates to produce interim (unpublished) updates?

Answer: Thematic summaries have been updated according to an agreed schedule. There

are no interim (unpublished) updates. Project results which could potentially be feeding a

thematic summary have been published on the TRKC portal.

Question 20: Please could you clarify the requirement for the number and timescales of

updates for policy brochures and thematic summaries?

Answer: The tender specifications clearly define the timescales for the Review and update of

30 existing Thematic Research Summaries (I.17.2. on page 23). In addition, 4 policy

brochures will be produced per year (I.17.2. on page 23). However, it is also required that

content (in particular references) is up to date with eventual major structural changes at

level of the projects, Programmes, Framework Programmes or European Transport Policy in

general. This is part of a quality control system that ensures the liability of information

present on the portal.

Question 21: What is meant by ‘clusters of analysis’? (p10 Para 2)

Answer: The concept of "Clusters of analysis" refers to grouping of projects, programmes,

modes of transport… which the contractor, in agreement with the European Commission,

will create to address the specific issues of each policy brochure. Depending on the issue of

the policy brochures, different groupings will have to be created.

Question 22: For FP6/FP7 projects information, does the project officer supply to TRKC or is

it the responsibility of contractor to seek this information?

Question 23: What is the time frame implied by the phrase “shortly after contract signature?

(pg 6 of ITT).

Question 24: Who is responsible for posting FP7 profiles of transport project information to

the web?

Answer to questions 22, 23 and 24: It is the responsibility of the contractor to seek projects

information "Shortly after contract signature", meaning as soon as information is available in

CORDIS. The posting of FP7 profiles to the web is done automatically shortly after the

contract signature. However, every project funded under the Framework Programme is also

required to create its own website where important information about the project can be

collected.

Question 25: There is a requirement to update existing programme profiles (National, EU &

International). Where does the responsibility lie for this and how many updates would be

deemed to be a success?

Answer: The whole database of programme profiles will have to be readdressed and

updated during the contract duration, if needed. This is requested in order to maintain the

reliability of information present on the portal.

Question 26: The bid document describes the aspiration to cover “other research activities

which are not publicly funded but are believed to influence the evolution of Transport

Research in the ERA”. Would we have an opportunity to define the parameters about what

they consider to be relevant research with them at either the pre or post bid stage?

Answer: These parameters will be established between the Commission and the successful

contractor. This issue will be discussed at the kick-of meeting. The contractor is however

welcomed to suggest in the proposal ways of addressing this issue.

Question 27: Paragraph I.11 P 5. This paragraph implies there is a requirement for access to

the database from external systems. Please provide clarification on access methods and

security if this is the case.

Answer: The requirement for access to the database is for the parent DGs, thus internal to

the Commission. It is left to the tenderer to make proposals on how to organise such access.

Question 28: Regarding paragraph I.11 on P6, Could you please explain what you mean with

“available to the needs of the CORDIS portal”? Are those records meant to be exported to

the CORDIS projects database? Are those records to be made ‘searchable’ from the CORDIS

search interface?

Answer: TRKC will ensure that, when available, information requested will be transmitted to

CORDIS. The purpose is to maintain cooperation between CORDIS and TRKC. Database will

have to be compatible with the Commission technological web environment to ensure

interaction of search tools of both sites and for an eventual exportation to the CORDIS

project database.

Question 29: Paragraph I.11 P6. Does this paragraph mean that we have to host the solution

using the technology described in I.13.1 and that it must be handed back in the same

format?

Answer: No. However the solution used must ensure maintenance, support and security,

provide the same features as the current portal and at the end of the contract the project

the database has to be compatible with the Commission technological web environment to

an eventual reintegration in the europa.eu website.

Question 30: Paragraph I.13.1 the software currently used is, or is about to go, out of

support by its suppliers. Windows 2K is already unsupported by Microsoft. SQL 2000 is out of

support but extended support is available until 9th April 2011. Coldfusion is currently at

version 9. Is it expected that the contractor would use up to date versions of these products

to ensure maintenance and support availability?

Answer: The tenderer is allowed to propose updated versions of the products, as long as the

versions proposed respect the minimum requirements mentioned in answer to question 29.

Question 31: Please can you provide us with a copy of the existing database schema?

Answer: The Commission does not publish the details of the back-office architecture of its

websites for security reasons. Contractors should propose the most appropriate technical

solution for developing the TRKC website, and are therefore not limited to using the existing

database structure. The winning contractor will receive all technical documentation from the

outset of the contract.

Question 32: Please advise what language the .NET pages are written in, ie: c# or VB and if

the .NET site utilises any third party licensed components.

Answer: For the extranet:

- ASP.NET 3.5 + ASP.NET Ajax

- C# 3.0

3rd party components:

-CuteEditor

-AspxLab.WebControls

-ExtendedObjectDataSource

3rd party component for the internet site is Image_library

Question 33: Will existing channels of distribution be provided to new contract winner,

including current list of “key actors”?

Answer : Yes

Question 34: Are there brand guidelines in place for TRKC and is it possible to have sight of

these?

Answer: The past contractor has followed the graphic chart of DG TREN/MOVE.

Question 35: To minimise costs is it an option to change print formats to say, A4 and, how

much flexibility is there in terms of print procurement: ie, are we expected to use existing

EU approved print suppliers and if so, are there technical specifications for paper and print

we should follow?

Answer: Regarding specifications for paper and print, the quality must correspond to the

print publications of DG MOVE overall (the current format is in line with these

requirements). Regarding print procurement, there is no requirement as to the origin of

suppliers.

Question 36: There is a requirement to add 10 new links per week: is this an average of 10

per week over the contract period, or a minimum of 10 per week?

Answer: The contractor is asked to add 10 new links per week. Links also have to be up to

date. The contractor is expected to elaborate its own vision on how to fulfil this task and

propose alternative solutions if needed. This is part of the technical quality of the tender.

Question 37: Is it acceptable to post the newsletter on the portal and send web link to the

database rather than distributing an electronic version via email?

Answer: The tenderer is encouraged to send the electronic version of the newsletter via

email. The tender is however allowed to propose creative ways of doing so, either by an

alternative format for this purpose, or by attaching the newsletter to an email or any other

method which improves the quality of dissemination and communication activities.

Question 38: How will additional events, if identified and approved, be paid for (ie does this

attract an additional funding element?)

Question 39: Same question for “additional awareness raising materials” and activities?

Answer to questions 38 and 39: There is no additional funding element for events or

"additional awareness raising materials.

Question 40: Could you please clarify what the expected page range of the EU Tender is?

Answer: There is no maximum or minimum limit for the page range for the proposals for this

invitation to tender. However, it's strongly recommended to make the proposals as concise

as possible in order to facilitate and accelerate the evaluation procedure.

Question 41: Is there a mechanism for notifying the TRKC when new or updated project

information is published in CORDIS?

Answer: No, such mechanism doesn't exist.

Question 42: After new or updated project information is published in CORDIS, is it then

expected that TRKC will contact the project coordinator for each new or updated project

to obtain further information?

Answer: The tenderer can and is highly recommended to maintain an open communication

channel with the project coordinators to ensure that information is up to date. However,

there are complementary ways of addressing this issue such as, for instance, the frequent

visit of CORDIS website or the website of each project.

Question 43: On page 13 of the Tender Specifications, Web-based dissemination activities"

section, the text mentions (see specifications on chapter I.14.2). Which section does this

refer to given that I.14.2 does not exist?

Answer: Indeed section I.14.2 does not exist. This was an error and a corrigendum has been

published in order to correct it. The chapter the tenderers should refer to is I.15.2.

Question 44: On page 22 of the Tender Specifications, in Section I.17.2, regarding

Deliverables, the Policy Brochure is accompanied by videos. Does this mean that every policy

brochure will be accompanied by a new video? Or in some occasions only?

Answer: The specifications set the requirements for the video feature on page 18 under

chapter I.15.5: "The tenderer will produce at least one video in English with for each Policy

Brochure, summarising the findings". Additionally, the Tender Specifications also state in

page 13, under section "Web-based dissemination activities": "The 3 linguistic versions of

the Policy Brochures will also be available online, as well as videos of at least 5 minutes

which will wrap up the conclusions of each brochure. These videos will be delivered together

with the Policy Brochures."

Question 45: Does the EC believe that Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of

Employment) Regulations will be applicable in the context of this call?

Answer: As far as the European Commission is aware, there will be no transfer of

undertakings related with this call. "THE CONTINUATION OF THE TRANSPORT RESEARCH

KNOWLEDGE CENTRE" will be a new research project under FP7 which will build upon results

of the existing project (that belong to the European Commission) and which will be used by

the successful tenderer to develop the new TRKC.

Last update:

17 January 2011

Annex I

Statistics for the TRKC website for years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

transport-research.info

Dashboard1 Jan 2007 - 30 Dec 2007

Comparing to: Site

0

1,500

3,000

0

1,500

3,000

1 Jan - 31 Jan 1 Mar - 31 Mar 1 May - 31 May 1 Jul - 31 Jul 1 Sep - 30 Sep 1 Nov - 30 Nov

Visits

Site Usage

9,571 Visits

52,031 Pageviews

5.44 Pages/Visit

41.56% Bounce Rate

00:04:12 Avg. Time on Site

65.66% % New Visits

Visitors Overview

0

1,000

2,000

0

1,000

2,000


Visitors

Visitors

6,300

Traffic Sources Overview

Direct Traffic4,991.00 (52.15%)

Referring Sites3,547.00 (37.06%)

Search Engines1,033.00 (10.79%)

Map Overlay

Visits

1 1,520

Content Overview

Pages Pageviews % Pageviews

/web/index.cfm 6,868 13.20%

/transport/extra/web/index.cfm 3,486 6.70%

/web/errormessage.cfm 1,246 2.39%

/web/search.cfm?Adv=0&Prog 1,152 2.21%

/web/search.cfm?Progr=0&Pro 810 1.56%

1 Google Analytics


Content Overview1 Jan 2007 - 30 Dec 2007

Comparing to: Site

0

10,000

20,000

0

10,000

20,000


Pageviews

Pages on this site were viewed a total of 52,031 times

52,031 Pageviews

35,999 Unique Views

41.56% Bounce Rate

Top Content





/web/search.cfm?Adv=0&Progr=0&Proj=1&color=blue 1,152 2.21%

/web/search.cfm?Progr=0&Proj=1&Adv=0&color=blue 810 1.56%

1 Google Analytics


Visitors Overview1 Jan 2007 - 30 Dec 2007

Comparing to: Site

0

1,000

2,000

0

1,000

2,000


Visitors

6,300 people visited this site

9,571 Visits

6,300 Absolute Unique Visitors

52,031 Pageviews

5.44 Average Pageviews

00:04:12 Time on Site

41.56% Bounce Rate

65.66% New Visits

Technical Profile

Browser Visits % visits

Internet Explorer 7,470 78.05%

Firefox 1,706 17.82%

Mozilla 139 1.45%

Safari 124 1.30%

Opera 89 0.93%

Connection Speed Visits % visits

Unknown 3,689 38.54%

DSL 2,903 30.33%

T1 1,908 19.94%

Cable 535 5.59%

Dialup 497 5.19%

2 Google Analytics


Traffic Sources Overview1 Jan 2007 - 30 Dec 2007

Comparing to: Site

0

1,500

3,000

0

1,500

3,000


Visits

All traffic sources sent a total of 9,571 visits

52.15% Direct Traffic

37.06% Referring Sites

10.79% Search Engines




Top Traffic Sources

Sources Visits % visits

(direct) ((none)) 4,991 52.15%

ec.europa.eu (referral) 2,497 26.09%

google (organic) 967 10.10%

localhost (referral) 115 1.20%

google.co.uk (referral) 66 0.69%

Keywords Visits % visits

trkc 55 5.32%

(not set) 40 3.87%

transport info research 37 3.58%

www.transport-research.info 33 3.19%

transport research knowledge 20 1.94%

3 Google Analytics


Map Overlay1 Jan 2007 - 30 Dec 2007

Comparing to: Site

Visits

1 1,520

9,571 visits came from 111 countries/territories

Site Usage

Visits9,571% of Site Total: 100.00%

Pages/Visit5.44Site Avg: 5.44 (0.00%)

Avg. Time on Site00:04:12Site Avg: 00:04:12 (0.00%)

% New Visits65.70%Site Avg: 65.66% (0.06%)

Bounce Rate41.56%Site Avg: 41.56% (0.00%)

Country/Territory Visits Pages/Visit Avg. Time onSite

% New Visits Bounce Rate

Belgium 1,520 8.40 00:07:04 25.07% 32.04%

United Kingdom 864 4.36 00:02:48 70.25% 45.72%

Germany 850 4.62 00:03:18 78.35% 43.65%

Italy 677 5.54 00:04:10 69.13% 37.67%

Spain 567 9.13 00:06:02 72.49% 40.74%

France 505 5.34 00:03:54 67.52% 34.65%

United States 376 3.29 00:02:23 88.56% 60.90%

Poland 352 3.05 00:01:51 91.48% 55.40%

Netherlands 348 5.86 00:03:45 72.99% 40.80%

Portugal 299 4.62 00:06:14 42.14% 31.44%

1 - 10 of 111

4 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

10,000

20,000

0

10,000

20,000


Pageviews


52,031 Pageviews

35,999 Unique Views

41.56% Bounce Rate

Top Content





/web/search.cfm?Adv=0&Progr=0&Proj=1&color=blue 1,152 2.21%

/web/search.cfm?Progr=0&Proj=1&Adv=0&color=blue 810 1.56%

5 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

1,500

3,000

0

1,500

3,000


Visits








Top Traffic Sources


(direct) ((none)) 4,991 52.15%


google (organic) 967 10.10%

localhost (referral) 115 1.20%

google.co.uk (referral) 66 0.69%


trkc 55 5.32%

(not set) 40 3.87%

transport info research 37 3.58%



1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

1,000

2,000

0

1,000

2,000


Visitors


9,571 Visits


52,031 Pageviews



41.56% Bounce Rate

65.66% New Visits

Technical Profile



Firefox 1,706 17.82%

Mozilla 139 1.45%

Safari 124 1.30%

Opera 89 0.93%


Unknown 3,689 38.54%

DSL 2,903 30.33%

T1 1,908 19.94%

Cable 535 5.59%

Dialup 497 5.19%

1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

3,000

6,000

0

3,000

6,000


Visits

Site Usage

36,777 Visits

132,378 Pageviews

3.60 Pages/Visit

53.56% Bounce Rate


69.43% % New Visits

Visitors Overview

0

2,500

5,000

0

2,500

5,000


Visitors

Visitors

25,836





Other713 (1.94%)

Map Overlay

Visits

1 3,854

Content Overview


/web/index.cfm 23,176 17.51%

/web/projects/transport_theme 6,410 4.84%

/web/common/search.cfm 5,781 4.37%

/web/publications/thematic.cfm 4,021 3.04%

/web/projects/http://www.trans 2,303 1.74%

1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

2,500

5,000

0

2,500

5,000


Visitors


36,777 Visits


132,378 Pageviews



53.56% Bounce Rate

69.43% New Visits

Technical Profile



Firefox 9,802 26.65%

Safari 707 1.92%

Opera 463 1.26%

Chrome 209 0.57%


Unknown 14,576 39.63%

DSL 11,233 30.54%

T1 6,810 18.52%

Cable 2,599 7.07%

Dialup 1,350 3.67%

2 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

3,000

6,000

0

3,000

6,000


Visits








Other713 (1.94%)

Top Traffic Sources


google (organic) 16,323 44.38%


(direct) ((none)) 7,163 19.48%

trb.org (referral) 372 1.01%

yahoo (organic) 327 0.89%


trkc 605 3.54%

cardme 4 139 0.81%


transport research 92 0.54%


3 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

Visits

1 3,854


Site Usage








United Kingdom 3,854 3.68 00:03:00 74.36% 54.33%

Belgium 3,657 3.78 00:03:52 44.05% 47.91%

Germany 2,969 3.77 00:03:23 76.83% 53.38%

United States 2,401 2.40 00:01:53 86.34% 68.43%

Italy 2,352 4.06 00:03:26 64.24% 48.43%

France 1,952 4.23 00:04:25 67.32% 44.93%

Spain 1,770 3.31 00:03:12 62.32% 59.55%

Netherlands 1,525 3.67 00:02:56 65.64% 51.21%

Greece 1,139 5.69 00:06:41 47.15% 43.55%

Luxembourg 878 4.84 00:05:30 45.67% 39.98%

1 - 10 of 160

4 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

10,000

20,000

0

10,000

20,000


Pageviews


132,378 Pageviews

98,001 Unique Views

53.56% Bounce Rate

Top Content


/web/index.cfm 23,176 17.51%

/web/projects/transport_themes.cfm 6,410 4.84%



/web/projects/http://www.transport-research.info/web/index.cfm 2,303 1.74%

5 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

10,000

20,000

0

10,000

20,000


Pageviews


132,378 Pageviews

98,001 Unique Views

53.56% Bounce Rate

Top Content


/web/index.cfm 23,176 17.51%




/web/projects/http://www.transport-research.info/web/index.cfm 2,303 1.74%

1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

3,000

6,000

0

3,000

6,000


Visits








Other713 (1.94%)

Top Traffic Sources




(direct) ((none)) 7,163 19.48%

trb.org (referral) 372 1.01%



trkc 605 3.54%

cardme 4 139 0.81%




1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

2,500

5,000

0

2,500

5,000


Visitors


36,777 Visits


132,378 Pageviews



53.56% Bounce Rate

69.43% New Visits

Technical Profile



Firefox 9,802 26.65%

Safari 707 1.92%

Opera 463 1.26%

Chrome 209 0.57%


Unknown 14,576 39.63%

DSL 11,233 30.54%

T1 6,810 18.52%

Cable 2,599 7.07%

Dialup 1,350 3.67%

1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

4,500

9,000

0

4,500

9,000


Visits

Site Usage

71,200 Visits

188,010 Pageviews

2.64 Pages/Visit

64.94% Bounce Rate


72.93% % New Visits

Visitors Overview

0

3,500

7,000

0

3,500

7,000


Visitors

Visitors

52,842





Other2,173 (3.05%)

Map Overlay

Visits

1 8,460

Content Overview



/web/http://www.transport- 11,912 6.34%




1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

3,500

7,000

0

3,500

7,000


Visitors


71,200 Visits


188,010 Pageviews



64.94% Bounce Rate

72.93% New Visits

Technical Profile



Firefox 20,454 28.73%

Chrome 2,502 3.51%

Safari 1,873 2.63%

Opera 1,481 2.08%


Unknown 28,634 40.22%

DSL 19,647 27.59%

T1 13,725 19.28%

Cable 6,543 9.19%

Dialup 2,253 3.16%

2 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

4,500

9,000

0

4,500

9,000


Visits








Other2,173 (3.05%)

Top Traffic Sources



(direct) ((none)) 10,062 14.13%


Email marketing software 1,535 2.16%



trkc 1,408 2.74%


define:swot 283 0.55%


define:edi 268 0.52%

3 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

Visits

1 8,460


Site Usage








United Kingdom 8,460 2.47 00:02:11 76.64% 66.90%

United States 6,110 1.69 00:01:04 90.51% 81.18%

Germany 5,103 2.84 00:02:33 70.76% 62.32%

Belgium 5,063 3.03 00:02:57 47.96% 54.71%

France 3,763 3.21 00:03:39 58.09% 58.30%

Italy 3,717 3.56 00:04:09 56.55% 55.42%

Spain 3,278 3.09 00:03:27 60.62% 58.48%

India 2,887 1.84 00:01:37 91.69% 72.32%

Netherlands 2,138 2.54 00:02:01 78.39% 62.58%

Australia 1,702 2.07 00:01:45 81.20% 68.80%

1 - 10 of 186

4 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

15,000

30,000

0

15,000

30,000


Pageviews


188,010 Pageviews

144,254 Unique Views

64.94% Bounce Rate

Top Content



/web/http://www.transport-research.info/web/index.cfm 11,912 6.34%




5 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

15,000

30,000

0

15,000

30,000


Pageviews


188,010 Pageviews


64.94% Bounce Rate

Top Content







1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

4,500

9,000

0

4,500

9,000


Visits








Other2,173 (3.05%)

Top Traffic Sources



(direct) ((none)) 10,062 14.13%


Email marketing software 1,535 2.16%



trkc 1,408 2.74%




define:edi 268 0.52%

1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

3,500

7,000

0

3,500

7,000


Visitors


71,200 Visits


188,010 Pageviews



64.94% Bounce Rate

72.93% New Visits

Technical Profile



Firefox 20,454 28.73%

Chrome 2,502 3.51%

Safari 1,873 2.63%

Opera 1,481 2.08%


Unknown 28,634 40.22%

DSL 19,647 27.59%

T1 13,725 19.28%

Cable 6,543 9.19%

Dialup 2,253 3.16%

1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

4,500

9,000

0

4,500

9,000


Visits

Site Usage

81,266 Visits

216,746 Pageviews

2.67 Pages/Visit

63.76% Bounce Rate


69.24% % New Visits

Visitors Overview

0

3,500

7,000

0

3,500

7,000


Visitors

Visitors

57,776





Other2,567 (3.16%)

Map Overlay

Visits

1 10,792

Content Overview


/web/http://www.transport- 15,991 7.38%





1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

3,500

7,000

0

3,500

7,000


Visitors


81,266 Visits


216,746 Pageviews



63.76% Bounce Rate

69.24% New Visits

Technical Profile



Firefox 26,474 32.58%

Chrome 7,280 8.96%

Safari 2,765 3.40%

Opera 1,692 2.08%


Unknown 29,967 36.88%

DSL 22,209 27.33%

T1 17,920 22.05%

Cable 8,492 10.45%

Dialup 2,313 2.85%

2 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

4,500

9,000

0

4,500

9,000


Visits








Other2,567 (3.16%)

Top Traffic Sources



(direct) ((none)) 15,010 18.47%


Emailmarketingsoftware 2,394 2.95%

yahoo (organic) 1,110 1.37%


trkc 1,507 2.78%




group for urban interchanges 156 0.29%

3 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

Visits

1 10,792


Site Usage








United Kingdom 10,792 2.43 00:02:00 75.26% 68.55%

United States 7,066 2.43 00:04:17 81.11% 72.80%

Germany 5,615 2.83 00:02:55 69.37% 62.24%

Belgium 5,078 3.44 00:03:38 46.12% 50.98%

Italy 4,091 4.61 00:04:33 58.13% 52.90%

France 3,839 2.62 00:02:27 64.65% 60.12%

Spain 3,796 2.89 00:03:15 57.17% 59.04%

India 3,211 1.87 00:01:40 87.48% 70.48%

Netherlands 2,367 2.53 00:02:00 73.68% 62.91%

Greece 2,139 3.63 00:06:25 40.91% 47.03%

1 - 10 of 183

4 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

15,000

30,000

0

15,000

30,000


Pageviews


216,746 Pageviews


63.76% Bounce Rate

Top Content







5 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

15,000

30,000

0

15,000

30,000


Pageviews


216,746 Pageviews


63.76% Bounce Rate

Top Content







1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

4,500

9,000

0

4,500

9,000


Visits








Other2,567 (3.16%)

Top Traffic Sources



(direct) ((none)) 15,010 18.47%


Emailmarketingsoftware 2,394 2.95%

yahoo (organic) 1,110 1.37%


trkc 1,507 2.78%




group for urban interchanges 156 0.29%

1 Google Analytics



Comparing to: Site

0

3,500

7,000

0

3,500

7,000


Visitors


81,266 Visits


216,746 Pageviews



63.76% Bounce Rate

69.24% New Visits

Technical Profile



Firefox 26,474 32.58%

Chrome 7,280 8.96%

Safari 2,765 3.40%

Opera 1,692 2.08%


Unknown 29,967 36.88%

DSL 22,209 27.33%

T1 17,920 22.05%

Cable 8,492 10.45%

Dialup 2,313 2.85%

1 Google Analytics

Documents

Frequently Asked Questions - European Commission · 2016. 9. 28. · Visitors Overview 0 1,000 2,000 0 1,000 2,000 1 Jan - 31 Jan 1 Mar - 31 Mar 1 May - 31 May1 Jul - 31 Jul 1 Sep