Creating Better Places with Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

Creating Better Places With TDM: A Tool for
Measuring Access to Multi-Modal Travel Options at
the Building Level

A Capstone Project
Presented to faculty of Sustainable Urban Planning
in the
College of Professional Studies
at
The George Washington University
In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Professional Studies in Sustainable Urban Planning

by Brett Jones
December 15, 2013

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction to Transportation Demand Management
Benefits of TDM
Measuring TDM Success
TDM and Sustainable Development
A Brief Background on Arlington, VA
Regional Context – State of Travel and Planning
A Regional Model for the Rest of the Country
Sustainable Development in Arlington
New Frontiers for TDM
A Shifting Paradigm – TDM in the Spotlight
Shifting Preferences – The Millennial Topic
The Rise of Collaborative Consumption
Alternative Workspaces
New Transportation Modes Enhanced by Technology
Emerging Technologies Helping to Reshape the TDM Industry
Options, Options, Options
New Opportunities to Embrace Multi-Modalism
Multi-Modal Transportation Score – Measuring Transportation Access at the
Building Level
Using Transportation Amenities to Fill Vacancies
Methodology
Explanation of TDM Interventions
Compiling ModeScore
Limitations and Weighting
Results
What is a Good ModeScore ?
Further Comparison of Site Plan vs. Non Site Plan Performance
ModeScore as a Tool for Buildings
Opportunities for Supporting Sustainable Development – A Policy
Recommendation for Arlington County, VA
Elements of Arlington’s TDM Policy
Creating Better Partners with TDM
ModeScore for Arlington County Site Plans
Limitations and Areas for Expansion

3
4
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
12
14
16
16

Works Cited

37

Appendix A – Sample ATP Quick Glance
Appendix B – Transportation Display Kiosk Survey
Appendix C – Sample ‘Certificate of Occupancy’ Checklist

41
42
43

16
17
18
20
21
22
26
26
28
29
30
31
32
34
35

2

Executive Summary
Transportation access in the United States is in a state of constant motion. New
transportation modes and systems join shifting preferences of where people live, work and
play, and how they get around. Increasingly, technology is influencing the way we travel, by
supporting the creation of new transportation systems, and also new ways to access
information about existing transportation options.
This paper looks at the current state of mobility in the United States, with an emphasis on
programs related to the practice of transportation demand management, and its impact on
sustainable development through reducing congestion, improving environmental quality and
improving social wellness.
The analysis provides an overview of transportation demand management practices in the
United States, and uses the Washington, DC Metro region as a backdrop to discuss trends
and best practices affecting transportation, including demographic shifts, new technologies
and evolving preferences. What emerges is an evolution toward a more multi-modal society,
where users rely on several transportation options and systems to get around.
Buildings are under increased pressure to offer environments that encourage and support
multi-modal travel. This paper offers a new tool to measure multi-modal access at the
building level, using a building’s inherent accessibility based on physical location, and also
incorporating steps that buildings take to improve access to the site through the adoption of
transportation demand management programs. The result is a Multi-Modal Transportation
Score for each building, measuring how effective it is at promoting a variety of alternative
transportation options.
The Multi-Modal Transportation Score is applied to a series of buildings in Arlington, VA,
looking at trends in how buildings perform based on location, type and involvement with
local transportation partners. This analysis uses this information to provide guidance on how
buildings can use this tool to market their properties, and improve overall building
performance.
Finally, this analysis includes a specific policy recommendation targeted at how Arlington
County, VA can incorporate this new tool into its already robust sustainable development
policies, leading to better partnerships and improved performance toward achieving stated
goals of reducing congestion through promotion of alternative transportation modes.

3

Introduction to Transportation Demand Management
As a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) with nearly 6 million people (U.S. Census Bureau),
the Washington, DC region is one of the most crowded and congested in the United States.
Each day, millions must navigate local roads and transit systems en route to their place of
employment. Many choose to do so in their personal vehicles, driving alone. But, a growing
number are choosing more sustainable forms of transportation, using local rail, bus and bike
systems to manage their daily commute.
Increasingly, the Washington, DC region is adopting Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) principles, combined with an increased focus on sustainable, transit oriented
development (TOD) practices to improve quality of life in the region by 1) working to
provide additional transportation options and 2) providing tools and resources to help
travelers make educated choices about how they move throughout the region.
To define TDM, I borrow a phrase from an undergraduate professor of mine at the
University of Iowa. Originally used to describe the role of marketing in business, ‘getting the
dogs to eat the dog food’ aptly describes the role of TDM in helping individuals evaluate
their transportation choices. Simply put, transportation demand management is the
application of strategies and policies to reduce travel demand (specifically that of singleoccupancy private vehicles), or to redistribute this demand in space or in time (VTPI, 2008).
TDM programs provide support through marketing and outreach, incentives, trip planning
and other means to educate and build awareness of available transportation options, and
create more effective use of existing transit systems. TDM is the soft infrastructure that
enhances and supports the hard infrastructure of the various transportation modes.
In most jurisdictions, TDM outreach is targeted toward the employer population in a given
jurisdiction – helping to manage the daily commutes of employees traveling to and from
their worksite. As this paper will explore, the role of TDM is beginning to expand, both in
scope of outreach, and in target market. Using the example of Arlington County, VA, this
paper will examine the shifting trends that are re-defining traditional approaches to TDM,
and suggest new opportunities to enhance sustainable mobility options not just for
commuting, but for trips of all kinds.
Benefits of TDM
In 2011, transportation systems currently account for nearly 28% of total U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, second only to the electricity sector (EPA, 2011). Reducing travel demand
through TDM practices can have a measurable impact in limiting the amount of greenhouse
gases that are emitted through our transportation systems.
Congestion relief is another primary benefit of TDM. Simply put, more people using
different modes of transportation removes the number of cars from the road. TDM can
reduce the number of cars on the road, while increasing the number of people who travel
through a given corridor.
The EPA’s Smart Growth program outlines (EPA, 2013) additional benefits of reducing
travel demand, including impacts on public health and safety. Improving the built
environment can improve public health by making it easier for people to choose active

4

transportation modes for part or all of each trip. Also, less cars on the road in general creates
a safer environment for pedestrians, bike riders and other drivers.

Shift between
modes

Less Stress
Less Exposure
to Pollution
Less Traffic
Accidents

Longer life
Healtheri Life
Fewer
injuries/
diseases

Cost Savings

More Physical
Activity

Health Impacts

Less VMT
More Active
Travel
Cost savings

Determinant

Outreach
Information
Subsidies

Behavior Changes

TDM

New research recently undertaken in Arlington County, VA attempts to quantify the return
on investment for transportation demand management practices related to improving public
health. Below is an outline of how TDM can impact the personal ROI for a commuter, as
well as for a community, employer or building by encouraging alternative, active modes of
transportation.
Individual
Community

Figure 1: Source - Simple Solutions Planning and Design, LLC

The study looked at two calculators, attempting to measure the potential ROI for TDM
programs related to reducing costs associated with personal mortality, loss of productivity
and workers’ compensation. Results show that the potential for Arlington County, given
their annual $10.5 million budget for TDM programs, is an annual savings of nearly $20
million in health impacts – nearly a 200% return on investment (Soneji, 2013). This suggests
that among the other benefits of TDM, providing access the active modes, such as biking and
walking can have a significant impact on community health, with real cost savings for al
parties.
Other benefits of TDM, though more difficult to measure, include reductions in stress,
increases in productivity, improved retention and recruiting and higher rates of employee
and resident satisfaction. For buildings and site developments, TDM can improve building
marketability, attract and retain tenants, help mitigate emissions and create better performing
buildings.
Measuring TDM Success
TDM measures and policies vary widely throughout the country, and are often managed on
a jurisdictional level, with some oversight from a regional government body, such as an
MPO. Because of this, traditional forms of measurement have been lacking. Recently, there
has been a push to develop more uniform performance measures for the TDM industry
(Thompson, 2013). Many of these measures, used by some organizations (such as Arlington
County) include measuring the number of vehicle trips reduced from local roads, as well as
corresponding reductions in the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). These traditional
measures, however, are also being re-evaluated in favor of a greater focus on human mobility
– new performance measures may look at the number of people moved through a corridor,
rather than the number of cars removed.
Specifically, this paper will attempt to measure TDM in the form of access provided – how
well buildings, employers and residential properties provide their populations with the
resources necessary to make effective decisions about how they travel.

5

TDM and Sustainable Development
Sustainable development, first defined in the UN’s “Our Common Future”, can be applied
to the development of commercial, residential and other properties. In this case, sustainable
development is described as building so that new developments contribute to the triple
bottom line of economic prosperity, social well-being and environmental stewardship. In the
real-estate community, economic sustainability includes minimizing life-cycle costs
(construction, operation and demolition), and maximizing the functionality of the building’s
design, aesthetics and systems. Social sustainability includes a focus on creating well-being
for the building inhabitants and visitors by providing a healthy environment, opportunities
for interaction, and an aesthetically pleasing environment. Finally, environmental
sustainability involves building and operating a building in a way that minimizes the impact
on natural systems and consumption of resources (Schuman, 2010). Most commonly,
environmental sustainability is measured through ‘green-building’ systems such as the U.S.
Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system.
Looking specifically at the role of TDM in supporting sustainable development, TDM
supports sustainable buildings by ensuring that transportation systems run more smoothly –
more individuals have access to more options. Todd Litman further applies transportation to
the definition of sustainability by pointing out that ‘sustainable’ planning means that local,
short-term decisions are compatible with strategic regional and global long-term goals
(Litman, 2013).
The table below, borrowed from The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI, 2008)
outlines a number of transportation indicators that can influence the triple-bottom-line of a
given site or project development:
Economic
Traffic congestion
Mobility barriers
Crash damages
Transportation facility costs
Consumer transportation
costs
Depletion of non-renewable
resources

Social
Inequity of impacts
Mobility disadvantaged
Human health impacts
Community cohesion
Community livability
Aesthetics

Environmental
Air pollution
Climate change
Habitat loss
Water pollution
Hydrologic impacts
Noise pollution

Figure 2: Triple Bottom Line Impacts of Transportation at Building Level

Transportation demand management strategies applied at the site level can directly influence
a number of these transportation indicators. Compared to traditional TDM outreach,
incorporating TDM at the site or building level is a relatively new concept in most
jurisdictions. Data on the individual policies for development vary across cities and regions.
Some, such as Arlington County, VA have adopted formal TDM policies for commercial
and residential development (discussed later in this paper). Other jurisdictions, such as
Bellevue, WA have developed local trip-reduction ordinances (TRO). Trip reduction
ordinances (TROs) are local, regional, or state government requirements designed to
encourage the use of transportation alternatives such as ridesharing, transit, bicycling, and
walking - or even telecommunications substitutes - rather than a single occupant vehicle
(EPA).

6

A Brief Background on Arlington, VA
Arlington, VA is an urban county located just outside Washington, DC. Comprising only 26
square miles of land, Arlington is the smallest county in the United States. Arlington’s
population on January 1, 2013 was 212,900 (Arlington County Government, 2013). Of those
(a total workforce of 138,000) only around 40,000 work in Arlington – the rest are
commuting to other jurisdictions, including Washington, DC and Tyson’s Corner, VA.
Conversely, workers from throughout the region come to Arlington to fill its nearly 240,000
jobs.
Arlington is characterized by its unique approach to urban development, concentrating
growth in dense, walkable transit-oriented-development (TOD) zones surrounding local
Metrorail stations. These ‘urban villages’ are distinct neighborhoods, each with their own
character, amenities and access to a variety of transportation options.
Regional Context – State of Travel and Planning
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) is the local MPO for
the Washington, DC metropolitan statistical area. MWCOG manages transportation
demand management programs for the region consisting of Washington, DC and other
surrounding jurisdictions:
• Arlington County, VA
• Alexandria County, VA
• Fairfax County, VA
• Loudon County, VA
• Prince William County, VA
• Frederick County, MD
• Prince George’s County, MD
• Montgomery County, MD
Figure 3: Map of MWCOG Jurisdictions
• Charles County, VA
MWCOG is the regional body that manages a suite of TDM programs, providing funding
and support to local governments. In a recent report, MWCOG outlined regional
transportation goals via the Regional Transportation Priorities Plan (MWCOG, 2013).
Among the six goals of the plan, two are directly related to the implementation of TDM
strategies in support of sustainable development sites. Goal #1 is stated as ‘Provide a
Comprehensive Range of Transportation Options, and speaks directly to TDM’s role in
providing choice and access to a multi-modal range of travel options. Goal #2, stated as
‘Promote a Strong Regional Economy, Including a Healthy Regional Core and Dynamic
Activity Centers’, looks at the region as a whole, and looks to capitalize on the benefits of
sustainable development in supporting dense, walkable urban areas (activity centers).
One way in which MWCOG measures the evolution of travel throughout the region is
through its ‘State of the Commute’ survey. The survey is completed every 3 years, selecting a
sample of residents from each of the 11 member jurisdictions to analyze shifts in commuting
patterns, as well as awareness of transportation options and incentive programs. In 2013,
recognizing the shifting definition of travel in the TDM industry, the survey asked about
travel routes and interest in emerging technologies, such as dynamic ridesharing services.
Overall results from the 2013 survey suggest some notable changes in the dynamics of
regional travel. For example, between 2001 and 2013, the number of respondents who self-

7

identify as ‘occasional’ teleworkers has risen from 11% to 27% (MWCOG, Commuter
Connections 2013 State of the Commute Survey Results, 2013). This suggests an increasing
opportunity to provide TDM services to individuals at their homes – particularly in dense
areas populated by multi-family residential buildings.
Further, 50% of survey respondents in 2013 live less than ½ mile from a bus stop, while 65%
live less than 1 mile from a bus stop. With a significant number living within walking
distance of bus service, there exists increasing opportunity to educate residents about local
bus options, particularly in providing route information and real-time arrival/departure
information. It should be pointed out, however, that regionally, only 17% have access to rail
within 1 mile of their home. In close-in jurisdictions, such as Arlington and Washington,
DC, this number much higher. Similarly, in these close-in jurisdictions, 84% of residents are
within ½ mile of a bus stop – creating even greater opportunity to improve access.
In other words, regionally, an increased focus in being provided to ideas supported by TDM
– providing a variety of transportation options concentrated in dense, walkable areas. The
concept of activity centers has taken on other forms, most notably the form of ‘Walkable
Urban Place’, defined by Chris Leinberger in the next section.
A Regional Model for the Rest of the Country
Thought leaders in Washington, DC have recently begun to flex the muscle of the entire
region, analyzing not only existing developments and their role in sustainability, but also the
potential that exists in controlling or retrofitting existing suburban growth outside the city
core. Many, when they think of Arlington County, for example, forget that it is a suburb of
Washington, DC. The commitment to sustainable, walkable growth has been such that
Arlington is viewed as almost an extension of Washington, DC. A similar effect could be
said for areas in Montgomery County such as Bethesda and Silver Spring.
Chris Leinberger, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and professor at the George
Washington University has expanded on this idea with his research surrounding WalkUps,
or Walkable Urban Places. Mr. Leinberger argues that in recent decades, metropolitan real
estate development in the United States has taken two primary forms – drive-able suburban
and walkable urban. In the former, real estate development often stands alone, isolated from
other projects, connected only by private auto. In the latter, higher density creates
neighborhoods in which real estate projects with a variety of uses are clustered together, and
sites are accessed via a range of transportation modes.
Following the ‘Great Recession’ (Rampell, 2009), development trends began to dramatically
shift toward projects of the walkable urban variety. Leinberger points out that in the period
from 1992 – 2000, walkable urban development accounted for only 24% of income property
in the region. During the period from 2009 to present, that has increased to 48%. More and
more, developers are recognizing the market signals that suggest increasing benefits of
walkable urban development.

8

Figure 4: 43 'WalkUps' in the DC Metro

The above image shows the 43 identified WalkUps in the DC region, and identifies several
‘regionally significant’ centers outside the urban core (Leinberger, Footloose and Fancy
Free: A Field Survey of Walkable Urban Places in the Top 30 Metro Areas, 2007). This
suggests that sustainable development, and multi-modal transportation does not have to
occur in the dense urban centers of Downtown. By concentrating growth in dense areas and
developing walkable neighborhoods, even suburban centers can benefit from the effects of
becoming a walkable, multi-modal, urban place.
Of particular significance here is Arlington, VA. On the map above, there are seven (7)
WalkUps in Arlington County, VA. Many of these exist thanks to a long-term vision on
behalf of the County to leverage investments in the Metro rail line, and create a series of
‘Urban Villages’, centered on the concept of walkable, transit oriented development.
Although technically suburban, the result of this planning, as discussed in greater detail
below, has been a series of dense, walkable nodes, and an extremely low rate of singleoccupancy-vehicle (SOV) travel.
Sustainable Development in Arlington
When developers are looking to build, or renovate, in Arlington County, they must follow a
rigorous site plan development process. In Arlington, there exists a system of proffers
(Fairfax County Government, 2009), in which developers can meet certain requirements to
achieve higher density. Of course, developers always have the option to develop ‘by right’,
subject to the zoning code of each district. In a majority of cases in Arlington, particularly in
areas around the carefully planned transit-oriented ‘urban villages’, (CarFreeDiet.com)
developers realize the market potential of increased densities, and are generally willing to
participate in the proffer system in exchange for a more marketable project. Taken from the

9

Arlington County Department of Community Planning and Housing Development
(DCPHD), the site-plan process can be explained this way:
The Site Plan Review Process provides a tool for the County Board to vary the uses,
heights, setbacks, densities and regulations of a zoning district for a specific project
to meet goals as reflected in adopted Sector Plans, the Comprehensive Plan or other
policies. The majority of proposals that go through the Site Plan Review Process are
for hotel, residential, office and mixed-use development in certain high density
zoning districts, usually located within the Metro Corridors.

During the review process, Arlington County staff evaluates all elements of the proposed
development, including site characteristics and proposed land use. The transportation
impacts of the site are also heavily scrutinized – how will the new development impact local
traffic patterns, parking and travel through the neighborhood? These impacts and
opportunities are then incorporated as TDM elements into the project’s site plan
requirements. Typically, the developer is involved throughout the process, and a negotiation
takes place. Some elements, however, as I’ll discuss later, are typically required by every site
plan that gets approval.
Arlington’s site plan review process is complex and intensive. While TDM elements focus
primarily on the transportation programs that are incorporated into each site, a number of
other requirements and considerations are included. These cover a variety of conditions,
including: public utility enhancements or extensions, traffic and street lights, street and
sidewalk improvements, signage, urban design standards, emergency access standards and a
host of other site-specific requirements (Arlington CPHD).
More detail about the County’s site-plan process will be given later in this analysis, in the
form of formal recommendations for changing County policies.

New Frontiers for TDM
Over the last several years, a number of shifting preferences and demographics have created
opportunities to re-think how TDM is approached. Evolving preferences among Millennial
and Baby Boomer generations are seeing more people moving to urban areas, lower levels of
driving and car ownership, and an increased preference for access to a variety of
transportation options. Additionally, new technologies are creating access to new types of
transportation options – which must be integrated into TDM strategies. What follows is a
review of these changes, and how TDM practitioners can embrace these new opportunities.
A Shifting Paradigm – TDM in the Spotlight
One doesn’t have to look far to discover evidence that the way we travel is changing. Many
recent articles and publications have suggested that we are at or past ‘peak car’ (Sivak, 2013).
Americans seem to be driving less – suggesting that several important shifts in mobility may
be taking place – 1) individuals are seeking new options for travel and 2) shifts in work and
shopping patterns are suggesting that we do not travel as frequently or as far as we used to. It
could be inferred that the very definition of transportation is changing. Where transportation
used to simply refer to mobility (physical travel to a fixed destination), a new definition now
encompasses access, and the ability of individuals to reach the services, amenities and
destinations they require – not just for work travel, but for all trips (Litman, 2013).

10

Take for example the most recent data from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS),
in 2009. Data illustrates that household trips to and from work (commute trips) only account
for 22% of total household trips taken on average. The remaining 78% of trips are personal
errands of various types– such as shopping, social, school or church (U.S DOT, 2010). By
encouraging, and providing options for sustainable modes for all trip types, TDM can have a
greater impact in reducing automobile travel. Further, by creating dense, walkable
communities, TDM can complement sustainable development by reducing the total distance
that must be traveled for each individual trip, as individuals have access to the things they
need at a closer distance.
Also worth noting, vehicle ownership has shown a measurable decline. In the 2009 NHTS
survey, vehicles per household were 1.86, down from 1.89 in 2001. While a small decrease,
this represents the first decline in vehicles per household since the study began in 1969.
This shift calls for a change in how we think about planning for transportation, and suggests
that simply building infrastructure isn’t enough. A traditional approach of building new
roads only leads to induced demand for SOV travel, as argued by Jeff Speck in his 2013 book
Walkable City (Speck, 2013). In order to maximize the benefits of multi-modal travel,
planning for transportation access must be included in the development process, from the
regional down to the site-plan level. Going further, implementing TDM measures to
encourage, educate and provide improved access to new transportation modes will be
increasingly important in the future.
Shifting Preferences – the Millennial Topic
Much has been written in the last several years about the emerging preferences of the socalled Millennial generation. Typically defined as those aged 18-34, the Millennial
Generation is rapidly re-defining traditional trends in how people live. Among the
demonstrated trends from the Millennial generation is an increasing number living in urban
areas (Pew , 2010), a preference for walkable urban development, and a decreased
dependency on automobiles (APTA, 2013). Millennials are also counted as the most likely
generation to embrace new technologies. As such, many of the new modes re-defining urban
mobility are targeted primarily at this generation. While this certainly raises important issues
surrounding equity and access, it cannot be ignored that the primary market for many of
these new options, and the demographic that will be providing the critical mass to make
them viable, is the Millennial generation.
However, it must be acknowledged that while these trends exist today, predicting how this
generation will behave in the future is difficult. Though Millennials may be starting families
and purchasing homes later in life than previous generations, there remains a strong
likelihood that this generation will still seek the type of single-family homes that their parents
did (Kotkin, 2013). TDM has a role to play in providing mobility options, so that walkable
urban development remains a preference as this generation ages. This also amplifies the
importance of creating walkable urban developments in suburban areas, as has been done in
Arlington County, VA through its transit oriented Urban Villages (CarFreeDiet.com).

11

The Rise of Collaborative Consumption
One of the fundamental shifts in urban mobility over the last several years has been the
emergence of the ‘sharing economy’. From a transportation standpoint, this is being driven
by three separate ideas – car sharing, bike sharing and dynamic ridesharing. In each of these,
the burden of ownership is taken away from the individual, while the freedom of mobility
remains.
The so-called ‘sharing economy’ has been the subject of numerous articles as of late (Today's
Smart Choice: Don't Own. Share., 2011). Extending beyond transportation options, the
growing ‘share’ sector also includes peer-to-peer consumption of everything from
transportation options to housing, travel and consumer goods, including companies like
AirBnB and Netflix.
Particularly embraced by Millennials, these emerging technologies and tools are highly
social, technologically focused, and are meant to be consumed on demand – using
technology to embrace the idea that products and services are available when needed, but to
not need to be owned.
Alternative Workspaces
The sharing economy is also beginning to change how people work, leading to an increase in
shared office, co-working space and ‘hoteling’. Each of these new ideas is a change from
how we traditionally think of employment, and thus requires a change in how we think
about mobility – new work environments will require new transportation options, and
perhaps new incentives. Particularly in the residential market, there will be increased
opportunity to provide amenities that provide teleworking and co-working resources for
residents.
New Transportation Modes Enhanced by Technology
Within the last few years, a number of new transportation options have begun to take hold in
Arlington, and other cities. These new modes, typically social in nature, are supported by
technology, boosted by social media, and targeted primarily at the tech-focused urban
Millennials. These new modes include bike sharing, car sharing and dynamic ridesharing.
Bike sharing
Though not particularly new, the concept of bike sharing is entering a ‘golden-age’ in the
United States. Following the lead of successful systems in Washington, DC, Minneapolis,
MN and Madison, WI, there are now bike sharing systems in operation or planning in
nearly all major U.S. cities.

12

Figure 5: Growth of Bike-Sharing Programs in the U.S.

The bike share program in the Washington, DC region, Capital Bikeshare, was installed in
2010, and has been one of the most successful examples of bicycle sharing in the United
States. The program originally launched with 110 bike stations – 95 in Washington, DC and
15 in Arlington’s Crystal City neighborhood. To date, the system has expanded to over 300
stations, with expansion into Alexandria, VA and Montgomery County, MD. Currently,
there are 56 stations located within Arlington, with additional expansion planned for 2014.
As of October 2013, the Capital Bikeshare system has over 40,000 annual members – and
thousands more monthly and daily users (Bikeshare, 2013). For the past six months starting
in May 2013, the Capital Bikeshare system has averaged over 250,000 individual rides per
month, system wide. For the same period, around 20,000 monthly trips have been taken in
Arlington.
Research has also supported the idea that Capital Bikeshare is being used as a mode for
general travel, and not just commuting. The 2013 Capital Bikeshare Membership Survey
(Diggins, 2013) revealed that 58% of users commute with Capital Bikeshare for at least part
of their trip. Additionally, 70% of users report using Capital Bikeshare for other trips such as
shopping or dining.
One interesting note about bike sharing, and other emerging modes of travel, is that they are
not just pulling drivers out of cars, but are also potentially cannibalizing other modes as well.
Also from the 2013 Capital Bikeshare Membership Survey, 50% of users reported driving
less as a result of bikeshare, while 60% reported fewer trips on Metrorail.

13

Car Sharing
Car sharing as a transportation mode is similar to bikeshare in that it allows users to
temporarily access a vehicle on a short-term basis, without committing to ownership.
Though the market is still growing, the most established car sharing program to date is
Zipcar. Zipcar leases parking spots throughout a metropolitan area, creating a network of
available cars that residents can rent by the hour, usually booking online, or through a
mobile app. Much like bikeshare, and other technology focused solutions outlined below;
Zipcar is heavily targeted toward the Millennial generation, recognizing the growth of that
market segment, and their evolving preferences away from car ownership ( (Zipcar, 2011).
Like other shared modes, car sharing platforms, Zipcar is a tool that isn’t used everyday, but
can help offset the need for owning a car, particularly in areas that provide numerous travel
options
There are important distinctions as well within the car sharing industry. Zipcar’s vehicles
‘live’ in specific locations, and must be returned to that spot once they are done being used.
On the other side of the coin, point-to-point car sharing programs, such as Car2Go have
begun to launch. Car2Go is currently operating in the Washington, DC market, but not yet
in Arlington.
Dynamic Ridesharing
Finally, the idea of sharing is extended to the commuter market via dynamic ridesharing,
often called real-time ridesharing. Dynamic ridesharing is social, demand driven platform
that creates carpooling and shared ride systems in real-time, connecting riders and drivers
through a user-friendly software platform (FHWA, 2011). Currently, the market for dynamic
ridesharing is cluttered, with a number of highly tech-based companies in operation, yet
without a single dominant platform that has emerged. Most popular in this region are
services such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar.
Existing research suggests that dynamic ridesharing options are currently a niche market at
best, and that a critical mass of users needed to make this a truly viable mode of
transportation has yet to be reached. Barriers to use include preference for other modes,
safety concerns and flexibility concerns (Deaken, Frick, & Shively, 2011)Also, from a
commuting standpoint, many prefer to plan commute travel in advance, and are less likely to
rely on real-time ridesharing, unless in an emergency situation.
Emerging Technologies Helping to Reshape the TDM Industry
The past several years has seen a groundswell of new technology, much of which is starting
to fundamentally impact the TDM industry, and create new opportunities to improve how
transportation information is distributed to the end user. In part to new technology and the
shifting patterns of information, the very nature of TDM itself is evolving. Traditionally,
TDM outreach, for example as conducted by Arlington Transportation Partners (ATP) has
focused specifically on programs and services designed to aid people in using alternative
transportation modes for their daily commute – shifting commuters from driving along in a
single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) and into other more sustainable modes. In recent years, new
technologies have begun to support an increased need for TDM practitioners to focus on
trips of other kinds, as we learn more about multi-modal travel. For example, an individual

14

might ride the bus, or even drive to and from work most days. But, while they are at work,
they might engage in walking trips during their lunch breaks, or maybe even use a bicyclesharing program to attend a meeting a short distance from their office (Baxandall, 2013).
Opening Minds With Open Data
It could be argued that the single biggest factor in how technology is enhancing access to
transportation information is through the concept of open data. Taken from Wikipedia,
Open Data is described as the idea that certain data should be available to everyone to use and
republish as they wish, without restrictions from copyright, patent or other mechanisms of control.
From a transportation standpoint, this means that a global network of engineers, coders,
tinkerers, developers and marketers have access to an unprecedented and rapidly growing
amount of transportation related data. In the case of Arlington, VA, the ability to access
open data for most of the transportation systems has resulted in new applications and tools
to support multi-modal travel.
TransitScreen – Technology That Addresses Equity Issues
One example of a solution utilizing open data
sources is a product called TransitScreen
(TransitScreen). For many, one of the barriers to
riding the bus, or using other transit systems is
access to reliable scheduling information. For a long
time, the best most transit agencies could do was
providing paper brochures that provide scheduled
arrival and departure time for buses and other
systems. Often, these prove unreliable, as buses that
become delayed are unable to relay that information
Figure 6: A Transit Screen in a Building Lobby
to riders waiting at future stops. Thus, unreliability
becomes a severe barrier to use. Many faced with
such uncertainty may choose to drive instead.
TransitScreen attempts to overcome that barrier by using open data from local transit
systems to offer users an aggregated look at site-specific transportation options. For example,
a TransitScreen in the Dupont Circle neighborhood in Washington, DC will tell you, in realtime, when the next Metrorail trains are departing, arrival times for bus lines within a ½ mile
radius, and also provide information about Capital Bikeshare bikes available at nearby
stations.
One aspect that sets TransitScreen apart from other tech innovations is that it has the
scalability to deploy this technology in a wider way than others – everyone can access a
screen in a building lobby. A particular challenge with creating transit based smartphone
applications (apps) is that only individuals with smartphones can use them. This leaves a
significant part of the population without access to a particular product. Currently,
smartphones only make up 64% (ComScore, 2013) of the market for mobile phones in the
U.S., which further ignores the 9% of Americans who do not own a mobile phone of any
kind. (Pew Research Center, 2013).

15

Options, Options, Options
Increasingly, the role of TDM practices should be to provide access to options. As the
definition of commuting, and even of travel continues to evolve, residents and workers will
be faced with new decisions regarding where they go and how they get there. Whereas
traditional travel involved a daily commute to work, typically done using the same mode
each day, the new travel paradigm suggests that a worker in Arlington may bike to work one
day, take transit another, and telework other days. TDM programs should strive to provide
equal opportunity and access for all residents to a variety of transportation options.
This idea is further supported by results from MWCOG’s 2013 State of the Commute Survey
– survey respondents identified different personal benefits from using different travel modes.
For example, for bicyclists, the primary personal benefit was relaxation or stress avoidance,
while the primary personal benefit of riding the bus is saving money. (MWCOG, Commuter
Connections 2013 State of the Commute Survey Results, 2013) So, by providing access to a
variety of travel options, TDM can help individual travelers maximize their utility on a daily
basis.
New Opportunities to Embrace Multi-Modalism
To date, TDM practices have done an admirable job of shifting travelers away from singleoccupancy-vehicle modes, and into alternative modes of transportation. Increasingly,
however, these modes are have become siloed, as TDM solutions and programs may address
only a single alternative option, or ignore the increasing diversity in how people, particularly
younger generations, are traveling.
Evidence of this narrow focus exists in several areas – increasing focus on active
transportation modes has lead to a number of ‘bike-friendly’ designations, awards and
amenities. It should be a goal of sustainable buildings to incorporate an equitable distribution
of modes and opportunities, not becoming too focused on a specific travel option.
The opportunity exists for buildings not to be focused on one mode or another, but to
promote and encourage multi-modal options. This paper introduces a new tool to do just
that – by creating a unique ‘Multi-Modal Transportation Score’ for each building.

“Multi-Modal Transportation Score” – Measuring Multi-Modal
Access at the Building Level
In an increasingly competitive world, buildings must take advantage of opportunities to
attract and retain tenants/residents, and promote building specific amenities. Multi-Modal
Transportation Score (ModeScore) is a metric that seeks to highlight the total accessibility
of a given building, taking into account all possible sustainable transportation modes. The
goal is for buildings to develop and embrace multi-modal transportation programs that
support a variety of options for building users, and create programs to encourage alternative
travel modes while taking advantage of inherent location-based mobility options.
ModeScore was developed as a way for buildings to increase their total marketability, and
potentially increase value, particularly in the multi-family housing market. Using Arlington
County, VA as a laboratory, the development of ModeScore has allowed for a unique

16

comparison between buildings already with rigorous TDM programs, and buildings that are
in potentially advantageous locations, but could be doing more to support alternative
mobility programs.
Using Transportation Amenities to Fill Vacancies
Economic development in Arlington, VA has become extremely competitive. Attracting
tenants to existing and new commercial office space in Arlington means providing value to
tenants, and creating strategic advantages to locating in Arlington instead of surrounding
areas such as Washington, DC, Tyson’s Corner, VA and Bethesda, MD. An analysis of
existing economic development trends in Arlington shows that vacancy rates among
commercial properties are growing. A report in early 2013 noted a 16.1% vacancy rate in
Arlington commercial buildings, compared to just an 11.5% vacancy rate across the river in
Washington DC’s central business district (Arlington Economic Development, 2013).
This competitiveness amplifies the need for buildings to create competitive advantages for
themselves, by creating environments that add value to an organization seeking to locate.
For many organizations, transportation is a key factor in determining where to locate.
Particularly in the Washington, DC region, where nearly half of the population growth over
the last 10 years has been of the Millennial generation. (Change, Tucker, Yates, & Davis,
2013). As noted earlier in this analysis, the Millennial generation increasingly values access
to a variety of commuting and travel options, suggesting that a building can provide a
competitive advantage for itself by marketing its ability to provide access to sustainable
transportation options and amenities.
Within the residential market, much of the same applies. Arlington is in direct competition
with Washington, DC and other markets to attract and retain residents of the Millennial
variety. The influx of population into the DC region means that housing must be provided –
and the housing must meet the demands of the incoming population. ModeScore as a tool
for residential properties will allow buildings to tout their unique capabilities to offer a
variety of transportation options to attract tenants, and retain them as long as they remain in
the region.
One large concern, and by many accounts an unknown with the Millennial generation, is
how their preferences will evolve over time. There are notable trends of Millennials marrying
and having children later in life compared to other generations (Marantz-Henig, 2010). A
recent study of young professionals in Arlington, VA showed that 75% of respondents value
access to good transportation options as an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ factor in deciding
what city to live in. Also ranking high were affordability of housing, safety, employment and
access to quality dining options (SIR, Inc., 2013).
The same study further suggests that those who work in Arlington, but do not live there,
have an SOV rate of 64%, while that rate is only 45% for those who live in Arlington. This
suggests opportunity of housing developments in Arlington to add value through
transportation options, creating long-term value to offset differences in housing cost
compared to areas outside of Arlington. Perhaps most notable from this research is the
suggestion that, compared to other cities, respondents who live in Arlington are likely to stay
for fewer years, the primary reasons being housing affordability and a lacking ‘sense of
community’ in Arlington.

17

The opportunity here exists for a tool like ModeScore to support existing transportation
programs and create value for residents living in Arlington. By embracing new forms of
mobility, such as car sharing and bike sharing, residents can access these ‘community-based’
amenities, and feel a stronger sense of place within Arlington. These modes, social in nature,
coupled with existing transportation infrastructure, create a culture of livability within
Arlington’s transit-oriented-development neighborhoods.
Further, research has shown a direct correlation between access to transportation and rent
premiums. A recent study from Cushman & Wakefield found that commercial buildings that
are within 300 feet of a Metro stations can command a 30% rent premium over those only
0.25 miles away (O'Connell, 2013). This demonstrates the impact that transportation can
have on a building’s performance. By taking a multi-modal approach, a building might help
improve its value, and offset its distance from Metro by promoting and encouraging access to
other transportation modes.
Methodology
ModeScore was developed using a two-tiered approach to measuring access to multi-modal
options. The first tier is location-based, which includes the inherent amenities and options
available in a given building’s location. The second tier includes value added amenities,
often through involvement with a
TDM agency that a property uses
to enhance access to the
transportation options available to
its users.
The purpose of this paper is to
introduce the tool, and apply it to a
sample of existing buildings in a
test market, Arlington, VA. A
database was created using 200
sample buildings in Arlington
County, VA, incorporating a
number of location and TDM
based measurements. The tables
below outline the different
variables included in the
development of the ModeScore
metric, and the data source for
each.
Figure 7: Map of Arlington Building Neighborhoods
Table 1: Building Demographic Variables

Variable Code
Name
BLD#
SP#
ADDY

Variable Description
Familiar name of building
Assigned building number
Arlington County Site Plan
Building
Property address

Data Source
ATP Client Database
Assigned
ATP Client Database
ATP Client Database

18

Residential property
Property zip code
Neighborhood within
Arlington

ATP Client Database
ATP Client Database
ATP Client Database

Walk Score
Bike Score
Transit Score
Walking distance to nearest
Metro station
# of bus lines within .25
miles
# of on-street bike lanes
within .25 miles
Additional designated ‘safe
biking streets’ within .5 miles

RES
ZIP
NHOOD

Data Source
Walkscore.com
Walkscore.com
Walkscore.com
WMATA.com and Google
Maps
WMATA.com – Services
Nearby
BikeArlington, Arlington
County GIS data
Arlington County Bike
Map, Arlington County
GIS data
BikeArlington, Arlington
County GIS data
Capitalbikeshare.com,
Arlington County GIS data
Capitalbikeshare.com,
Arlington County GIS data
Zipcar.com

Table 2: Location Specific Variables

Variable Code
WALK
BIKE
TRANS
METRO
BUS25
BIKE25
SAFEBIKE

BIKETRAIL
CABI25
CABI5
ZIPCAR
CAR2GO
LYFT
VRE
COMMBUS
DCCIRC

Paved bike trail access within
.5 miles
Capital Bikeshare stations
within .25 miles
Additional Bikeshare
stations within .5 miles
Zipcar access within
neighborhood
Car2Go access within .5
miles of site
Lyft/Sidecar/other dynamic
ridesharing access
Access to commuter rail
Access to commuter bus
options
Access to DC Circulator Bus

Car2go.com
Lyft.com; sidecar.com
Virginia Railway Express,
Google Maps
Omniride.com,
CommuterConnections.org
Dccirculator.com

Table 3: TDM Value Add Variables

Variable Code
BFB
BIKEBEN
INFODIST

BSTORAGE

Bicycle Friendly Business
designation
Property offers a bike
commuter benefit
Property distributes
transportation info to
residents/tenants
Property offers secure bicycle

Data Source
Bicycle League of America,
ATP database
ATP Client Database
ATP Client Database;
Database
ATP database, Arlington

19

storage
ATPQG
POOL
CARMEM
LEED

ATP prepared ‘Quick
Glance’ guide for property
Free or discounted parking
for carpools/vanpools
Property offers subsidized
car sharing memberships
Property LEED certification

STCARD

Property offers free SmarTrip
card

SHOWER

Property offers
shower/locker facilities

SHUTTLE

Property offers shuttle to
transit
Property offers a lobby
transportation display

TID

WEB
SCREEN
MEETING

TRANBEN

PTC

TELEWORK
WELCOME

INNOV

Property website offers
transportation information
Property installs electronic
screen with transit info
Meetings with ATP and/or
transportation ‘events’ on
site
Property offers subsidized
transit benefit program
Property designates a
‘Property Transportation
Coordinator’
Property offers telework
facilities (residential only)
Property offers welcome
packets to new tenants
Innovation Points – above
and beyond

County Site Plan database,
site visits
ATP Client Database
ATP Database, Arlington
County Site Plan Database
Database, property websites
US Green Building Council,
property web sites
ATP Client Database,
Database
Database
ATP Client Database, site
visits, property websites
Database, site visits
Property websites
Property websites, site
visits, ATP database
ATP database, site visits
Database
Database
Database
Database
Site visit, ATP involvement
(Subjective)

Explanation of TDM Interventions
The data sample here includes 200 buildings that are active or documented by Arlington
Transportation Partners (ATP), the transportation demand management outreach group
supporting Arlington County, VA. The sample includes primarily residential and
commercial office properties, but also includes a small sample of hotels and municipal
buildings. While ATP also performs outreach to individual employers (tenants within

20

sample buildings), this analysis and introduction of ModeScore does not include them. Also,
a number of the sample buildings are considered ‘site plan’ buildings, which means that they
have been required by the County to incorporate TDM elements into the building’s ongoing
operations.
This variety will allow ModeScore to look at how varying levels of TDM can enhance
mobility options, working in concert with a given location. For buildings in a less-accessible
location, can the lack of options be overcome by boosting TDM efforts to support the
options that do exist? Can buildings in dense locations with good multi-modal transportation
access use TDM to separate themselves from their peers, and create a competitive
advantage?
Compiling ModeScore
Very simply, ModeScore is a function of TDM interventions added to location based
characteristics of a site: Location + TDM = Mode Score. Looking at the variable sets
individually, there are number of factors that were considered. For location based variables,
ModeScore looked at total mode split numbers for commuting behavior at a nationwide
level, using the U.S. Census American Community Survey. Using data from 2009, the
commute mode-split for the DC region was:
Table 4: 2009 National Commute Mode Splits

Drive
Alone
66.1%

Carpooling

Transit

Biking

Walking

Other

10.61%

14.5%

0.57%

3.21%

5.01%

Looking more closely at local data from MWCOG (MWCOG, Commuter Connections
2013 State of the Commute Survey Results, 2013), we get a slightly different look when data
is pared down to look specifically at the ‘inner core’ of the region – specifically DC,
Arlington and Alexandria, VA.
Table 5: Travel Mode-Split for 'Inner Core' of DC Metro

Drive
Alone
45%

Carpooling

Transit

Bus

Bike/Walk

Other

6%

24%

10%

9%

5%

This is a more accurate reflection of commuting behavior in the area, and shows a more
reasonable split for how multi-modalism could be weighted for constructing ModeScore. It is
significant to point out also that this data is based on commuting, and does not include other
trips, which make up an increasing part of daily travel behavior. Emphasis should be placed
on a location’s inherent walkability, as well as access to more ‘errand’ friendly modes of
transportation, such as bike sharing and car sharing.
Using the variables included above, a total baseline ModeScore was calculated, reflecting the
‘maximum’ value that could be achieved in each category, resulting in a total ModeScore of
150 points.

21

Limitations and Weighting
Location-based variables
ModeScore took into account several location-based variables in determining the baseline
score for a site. First, an analysis of data from Walk Score® accounted for an initial
representation of a location’s access to a variety of modes (Walkscore). Walk Score provides
3 different points of data for a given site, with proprietary algorithms and data sources used
to calculate these scores.
•
•
•

Walk Score – measures walkability using access to local amenities, population
density and road metrics (Score 0-100)
Bike Score – measures bike friendliness using bike infrastructure, topography and
demographics (Score 0-100)
Transit Score – measures usefulness of transit routes based on frequency, type and
distance to nearest stop (Score 0-100)

Walk Score is the most established metric provided, and as there is lack of consistent and
accepted ways to measure walkability, a large weighting was given to this variable. Walk
Score is also an extremely important underlying factor in the ability to access other means of
travel. Nearly every non-driving trip begins with a walk, whether to a transit stop, bikeshare
location or Zipcar location.
A recent study of site-plan buildings (those required by the County to offer certain TDM
elements) looked at how Walk Score related to trips taken in a given area. The study found a
strong correlation between Walk Score, and walking as a primary mode of transportation for
a non-work trip (Diggins L. a., 2013). Similarly, the study found that a correlation exists
between higher Walk Score and lower levels of vehicle ownership.
Bike Score and Transit Score are also included, but given less weight overall, due to the
inability to access detailed methodology, and the availability of detailed bike and transit
measurement information specific to Arlington County, VA.
Further variables were added to measure more accurately the access that each property has
to bike and transit options. ModeScore looks specifically at proximity to a Metro station,
based on walking distance, and assigns a high rating due to Metro’s prominence as the
highest volume transportation option in the region. By distinguishing Metro from bus transit
(which Transit Score does not do), we can get a more accurate picture of the total public
transportation opportunities available at each site.
This analysis also takes into account the number of bus lines that serve each site, the number
of bike lanes, streets designated as friendly to cyclists, access to paved trails and access to
bicycle sales/repair shops. The ‘bike friendly’ streets and bicycle repair shops are metrics that
add value beyond what is captured by Bike Score.
Further data includes attributing value to locations that have access to less widespread
transportation options such as commuter buses, commuter trains, dynamic ridesharing and
other options that may serve only a handful of neighborhoods within the county.

22

Finally, the location-based score includes detailed measurement of a site’s access to
technology driven platforms such as Capital Bikeshare and Zipcar. With Capital Bikeshare,
access is measured at two points - .25 miles from the site, and .5 miles, with heavier
weighting given to the locations closer to the site. With Zipcar, measurement is calculated
based on the total number of Zipcar locations serving a specific neighborhood – providing a
total amount of vehicles that could reasonably be accessed from a building.
The chart below outlines how each of the location-based variables was calculated, and the
maximum available score for each variable, based on the data set used.

Table 6: Location Based Variables Calculation

Variable Code
WALK
TRANS
BIKE
METRO

BUS25
BIKE25
SAFEBIKE
BIKETRAIL
BIKESHOP
CABI25
CABI5
ZIPCAR
CAR2GO
LYFT
VRE
COMMBUS
DCCIRC

1

Weighting/Calculation
40% of measured score
Score 1-5 based on distance:
5 = 0 - .25 mile
4 = .25 - .5 mile
3 = .5 - .75 mile
2 = .75 – 1 mile
1 = > 1 mile
0.5 points for each bus line1within ¼ miles
0.5 points for each dedicated on-street
bike lane within 1/4 miles
0.5 points for ‘safe’ streets within ¼ mile
0.5 points for each bike trail accessible
within 1/4 mile, or directly via bike lane
1 point for bicycle shop within 1/2 mile
1 point for each Capital Bikeshare station
within 1/4 mile
0.5 point for each additional Capital
Bikeshare station within 1/2 mile
0.25 points for each Zipcar available in
neighborhood
1 point for access to Car2Go within ½
mile
0.5 points for building within coverage
area of LYFT or Sidecar
0.5 point for building within ½ mile of
VRE commuter train
0.5 point for building within ¼ mile of
commuter bus
0.75 points for building within ¼ mile of
DC Circulator route
Total:

Max Score
40
15
15
5

6
2
2
1.5
1
4
2
3.25
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
100

Bus line refers to a primary bus-route, and does not include individual spurs/deviations from the main route.

23

TDM Based Value Add Variables
To paraphrase the classic film ‘Field of Dreams’, transportation can certainly function as an
‘If you build it, they will come’ concept. For many jurisdictions throughout the country
(even large cities like Chicago, which currently lacks a TDM program), the availability of
transportation options is enough generate ridership on various systems. TDM programs have
proven that they can improve transportation systems by implementing programs and services
to enhance access through increased awareness, information distribution and financial
incentives. The variables in this section look at specific programs and amenities that
buildings can implement, with a goal of increasing the access to existing, location-based
transportation systems.
As an indicator of where TDM can add value, I refer again to the recent study conducted by
Arlington County Commuter Services, regarding the performance of site plan residential
buildings relative to other properties in Arlington (Diggins L. a., 2013). Further supported is
the idea that residents who have access to TDM programs are less likely to drive alone, and
more likely to walk, bike or use transit for a majority of their trips. This study concludes,
however, that TDM programs are most beneficial at the employer level. While a handful of
buildings studied here are owner-occupied (and therefore both buildings and employers),
most do not take into account employer-level TDM programs. For example, residents living
in an Arlington apartment building may have TDM programs at home, and also available
from their employer. As ModeScore is meant to measure access at the site-level, data does
not include employer specific TDM programs for each building.
The TDM based variables are applied to each building, based on the specific programs that
building might have in place. With this data, points are limited based on ATP’s direct
knowledge of building programs and amenities, derived from ATP outreach interaction, site
visits or Arlington County site-plan requirements.
The weighting for many of the TDM elements is reflective of the investment required by the
property owner or building property management staff to implement – both financial and
time spent on implementation.
The Bicycle Friendly Business designation is awarded to properties that have invested a
significant amount of time and energy into supporting bicycle culture as a travel mode. The
application process is extensive, and properties can devote several weeks to earning this
distinction.
LEED is another area of significant investment for properties, weighted here to reflect the
level of certification achieved. As LEED inherently includes certain transportation elements,
this was included to ensure that the effort put forth to achieve designation is not overlooked.
Several TDM variables include direct financial subsidy on behalf of the building to the end
user. These come in the form of subsidized parking for carpool and vanpool programs,
subsidized car sharing memberships and also transportation benefit programs, or pre-loaded
transit passes for building users. Additional weighting was given to programs like these, due
to being financial investments in the performance of the building, and its surrounding
transportation systems.

24

Investing in building infrastructure to improve transportation access comes in the form of
building secure bicycle storage, providing a shuttle to transit, ordering a brochure kiosk for
the lobby, or installing electronic video screens with access to relevant transit information.
Other programs are brought about through a property’s involvement with ATP, or another
TDM program in the region. These items are generally low-cost to the property, and often
offered for free by the TDM organization. Still, these programs are significant as they do
influence behavior change, and demonstrate a commitment from the building ownership
and/or management. These items include distributing welcome packets for new
residents/tenants, inviting ATP to attend meetings or events, using a ‘Quick Glance’ guide
(appendix A) produced by ATP or distributing information to building users.
Finally, this section also looked at the website for each individual property, to determine
how well they are promoting transportation options on their site. While subjective in nature,
this proved to be a valuable and diverse analysis of how different buildings communicate
about transportation.
Table 7: TDM Value Add Variable Calculation

Variable Code
BFB
BIKEBEN

Weighting/Calculation
4 points for BFB designation
2 points for $20/month bike benefit

Maximum Score
4
2

BSTORAGE

2 points for secure, indoor bicycle
storage
1 point for distributes info to
tenants/residents
2 points if posts a “Quick Glance”
guide prepared by ATP
4 points if offers discount/free parking
to Vanpool/Carpool
4 points if offers subsidized car sharing
membership
Points for LEED Certification:
Platinum = 3 points
Gold = 2 points
Silver = 1 points
4 points if provide SmarTrip card (with
value) to users. 2 points if no value
2 points if building has shower/locker
facilities for use
4 points if building provides free shuttle
to transit
2 points if building provides lobby
Transportation Info Display kiosk
Points for website transportation info:
Multiple modes + links = 3 points
Multiple modes = 2 points
Metro only = 1 point
Driving directions only = 0 points

2

INFODIST
ATPQG
POOL
CARMEM
LEED

STCARD
SHOWER
SHUTTLE
TID
WEB

1
2
4
4
3

4
2
4
2
3

25

SCREEN

MEETING
TRANBEN
PTC
WELCOME
TELEWORK
INNOV

3 points if invest in electronic
transportation screen w/ real-time data
feed
2 points if ATP involved in
meetings/events
3 points if provide transit benefit
subsidy to all building users
1 point if designate “Property
Transportation Coordinator” for site
2 points if provide welcome packet for
new tenants/residents
2 points if provide telework resources
Additional points for innovations not
included in above criteria (subjective)
Total

3
2
3
1
2
2
4
50 (INNOV not
included)

Results
After compiling the data set, the calculation was run for each of the 200 buildings in
Arlington, calculating a total ModeScore for each site. The data was then imported into
Stata for additional analysis.
The highest overall ModeScore is 107.35 out of 150, achieved by The Nature Conservancy,
an employer owned property in Ballston, and 1812 N. Moore, a commercial office building
in Rosslyn. This comes as little surprise, as Ballston and Rosslyn are the most transit-rich
‘Urban Village’ neighborhoods based on the data collected.
The average ModeScore of the 200 buildings in Arlington is 78.6.
Additional calculations show that the average location-based baseline score is 68.81, with a
maximum of 84.5. In other words, at best, a site was able to capture roughly 84% of
available location-based points. Finally, the initial analysis looked at the difference between
Mode Score and the location baseline (LOC) to determine what impact TDM programs had
overall. The average difference is 9, while the max is 30 points. In the most extreme case, a
building was able to add to its baseline LOC score by 30 out of 50 available points using
various TDM strategies.
What is a good ModeScore?
ModeScore, similar to Walkscore and other rating systems, has been developed as a tiered
system, providing rankings based on a range of values. A good ModeScore means that access
is provided through both location-based and TDM value-added services. The graphic below
illustrates the varying levels of ModeScore.

26

59 or less,
including
TDM

Multi-Modal Underperformer

60-80
At least 5
TDM

Multi-Modeal Travel Supporter

81-100
At least 10
TDM

Multi-Modal Travel Promoter

Multi-Modal Travel Leader

100+
At least 15
from TDM

Figure 8: The ModeScore Tiers

Further analysis looks at neighborhood specific ModeScores. Are there trends that develop
in specific urban villages of Arlington? How well do TOD zones perform relative to other
sites? Table 1 below lists the number of buildings analyzed in each of Arlington’s urban
village neighborhoods.
Table 8: Building Totals by Neighborhood

Neighborhood

Rosslyn

Ballston

# of Buildings

26
Courthouse

41
Lee
Highway
6

23

Crystal
City
21
Ft.
Myer
1

VA Square

Clarendon

Other

14
Columbia
Pike
20

19
Shirlington

12
Total

7

200

Table 9 below looks at how different neighborhoods performed overall, by measuring the
average and maximum location-baseline score and total ModeScore for each neighborhood.
Looking at the table below, you can see that the highest location-based scores are in Rosslyn,
Ballston and VA Square. One notable difference, however, is that for the total ModeScore,
the top neighborhoods are Ballston, Rosslyn and Clarendon. This could indicate a higher
level of building participation in Clarendon, or simply, a higher concentration of site-plan
buildings.
Table 9: LOCSCORE and MODESCSORE by Neighborhood

Rosslyn (26)
Ballston (41)
Crystal City
(21)
VA Square (14)

Mean
LOCSCORE
74.6
78
65.8
74.6

Max
LOCSCORE
81.85
84.5
71.1
79.7

Mean
MODESCORE
85.8
88.5
71.5
82.3

Max
MODESCORE
107.4
107.4
88
95.7

27

Clarendon (19)
Courthouse
(23)
Lee Highway
(6)
Ft. Myer (1)
Columbia Pike
(20)
Shirlington (7)
Other (12)

73.4
71.3

76.9
78.15

84.7
81.9

106.9
102

54.5

60.4

60.5

71.4

46.2
54.5

46.2
67.4

73.2
62.9

73.2
85.7

57.1
54.1

64.6
63.7

75.2
65.5

93.5
80.7

As mentioned previously, Arlington County’s site-plan process comes with specifically
mandated TDM programs that buildings must comply with in order to receive their
Certificate of Occupancy. We’ve already demonstrated through research done by the County
(Diggins L. a., 2013) that site-plan buildings tend to perform better regarding how well they
are able to shift travel from SOV to other modes. The ModeScore analysis supports this data
– Table 3 below outlines the location baseline and total ModeScore for site-plan buildings
compared to non-site-plan buildings.
Table 10: Site Plan Building Performance

Mean
LOCSCORE
Site Plan (158)
Non-Site Plan
(42)

Max
LOCSCORE

Mean
MODESCORE

Max
MODESCORE

69.8
65.11

84.5
82.3

80.9
69.9

107.35
95.4

While the location-based scores are relatively
similar for both building types, a large
difference is witnessed in ModeScore between
site-plan and non site-plan buildings. It is not
surprising to find that the required TDM
elements of site-plan buildings correspond to
increases in a building’s overall ModeScore.
Further Comparison of Site-Plan vs. Non
Site-Plan Building Performance
As an example of how well TDM programs
Figure 9: 1812. N. Moore rendering
enhance a building’s ModeScore performance,
we will compare 2 similar buildings, one with a County required TDM program, and the
other without.
For the site-plan example, the non-owner occupied building with the highest ModeScore was
used – 1812 N. Moore. Located in Rosslyn, 1812 N. Moore is a brand new office building
that was just completed in October 2013. While it currently awaits tenants, the site-plan
requirements of the building have been completed, and we can evaluate ModeScore based
on programs that will be made available to future tenants. (Monday Properties, 2013).

28

The location-baseline score for 1812 N. Moore is 81.35, based on its location in a highly
walkable urban village, less than 1-block from the Metrorail, and also directly located next to
Rosslyn’s major bus, hub, providing access to ten different bus lines. To achieve its total
ModeScore of 107.4, 1812 N. Moore was able to add 26 additional points through
incorporating TDM elements into its site. Among the items included in their site plan were
the purchase of SmarTrip cards to distribute to incoming building tenants, the installation of
a lobby transportation kiosk, and developing a partnership with Arlington Transportation
Partners to create site-specific transportation information kits for distribution to building
users.
1812 N. Moore also received TDM points for included discounted parking in its garage for
carpool and vanpool vehicles, and creating secure storage and shower amenities for
individuals who access the property by bicycle. Finally, 1812 N. Moore was able to achieve
additional points through its pursuit of LEED Platinum certification.
For contrast we look at 1600 Wilson
Boulevard, an older commercial building in
Rosslyn, located a 4 blocks from 1812 N.
Moore. 1600 Wilson was built in 1973, and
was not subjected to Arlington County’s siteplan requirements. The location baseline score
for 1600 Wilson Boulevard is 74.05, a
difference of 7.3 points from 1812 N. Moore.
This difference exists primarily due to 1600
Wilson being slightly further from Metro, and
Figure 10: 1600 Wilson Boulevard
having a few less bus options than 1812 N.
Moore. Biking and walking amenities exist in
both locations, and are nearly identical, save for 1812 N. Moore being slightly closer to bike
trails.
Once you begin to look at the TDM elements, however, differences between these two
buildings emerge. 1600 Wilson’s value-added score from TDM elements was only 6 points,
compared to 26 for 1812 N. Moore. 1600 Wilson, as of this writing, has not been required by
the County to implement a TDM program, nor have they voluntarily engaged Arlington
Transportation Partners to do so. According to the building’s website (WRIT, 2013), secure
bike parking exists within the garage, and showers are available for cyclists. It can be inferred
that this building relies heavily on its location near the Metro, and expects that employees
accessing the site are aware of its location near transit. However, as discussed earlier, using
TDM strategies to promote onsite and nearby amenities can further educate and create
additional travel options for building users.

ModeScore as a Tool for Buildings
Why should buildings care about ModeScore? Increasingly, as we have seen, younger
populations (which include much of the projected population growth in Arlington) are
expectant that their employers and places of residence will provide information and access to
a variety of transportation options. To the effect that buildings can market their ability to
provide access and amenities to multi-modal transit systems, they will be able to improve
occupancy rates, and potentially increase retention, adding value to their properties.

29

Systems like Capital Bikeshare are creating new opportunities for users to solve the ‘first and
last mile’ problem (NCMM, 2013). Traditionally, accessing DC’s Metrorail system has been
difficult for people who live over 1 mile from a station. With systems like Capital Bikeshare,
users are increasingly using bikeshare and other modes to cover that initial mile, creating
easy, fast connections with mass transit systems (Diggins L. , 2013). Buildings must
recognize that their populations will increasingly want, and expect, access to these types of
amenities in the future.
From a TDM outreach standpoint, this represents an increased opportunity to include real
estate developers and property managers in outreach efforts. Traditional TDM outreach
works to create value at the employer level – individual companies offering transportation
programs for employees traveling to the site. Arlington County has recognized a need, and
opportunity, to incorporate residential properties and commercial buildings in their outreach
efforts, creating dedicated outreach programs for both markets. By creating better buildings,
developers will be better equipped to attract commercial office tenants and residents
The recommendation of this paper is that ModeScore be adopted as a TDM outreach tool, to
encourage building participation. ModeScore data can be cultivated using a surveying
system to determine what TDM elements are available. Also, outreach personnel can work
directly with property managers and developers to set strategies for ModeScore
improvement. While the location baseline score cannot be improved in most cases (at least,
not by the property), the adoption of TDM strategies can help buildings leverage
transportation options that do exist for the site. Once a ModeScore analysis has been
performed for the building – the property can display their score as a marketing tool by
posting on a website, including in literature, etc.

Multi-Modal
Transportation
Score
100/150

Location Base
Score: 75

Benefits
and
Amenities
Score: 25

Figure 11: Sample 'Badge' for Building

Future research can be done to measure the impact that ModeScore has on attracting and
retaining building users, and examine the role of ModeScore as a tool for fostering
engagement and participation from building-level clients. Also, future versions of
ModeScore could work to incorporate the employer-level TDM programs that exist within
the specific tenants of commercial office buildings.

Opportunities for Supporting Sustainable Development: A Policy
Recommendation for Arlington County, VA
One of the clear trends emerging from the initial analysis of ModeScore data for the 200
building sample in Arlington was that by and large, building’s subject to Arlington County’s
site-plan process scored higher, particularly in the area of TDM value-added points. What

30

follows is a review of Arlington’s current TDM policy regarding site-plans, and
recommendations for incorporating ModeScore into the County’s TDM policy.
The Legal Basis for Arlington’s Site Plan Process
“Arlington will be a diverse and inclusive world-class urban community with secure, attractive
residential and commercial neighborhoods where people unite to form a caring, learning,
participating, sustainable community in which each person is important.” – Arlington County
Vision Statement
The mission of Arlington’s site plan process is in developing projects that align with this
vision set forth in the County’s vision statement. Specifically, in terms of transportation,
Arlington envisions a multi-modal system that provides equity and access to all of its users,
supported by careful coordination between land use and transportation planning. Arlington,
in other words, is very careful about how it develops, and takes great steps to ensure that
development supports programs and systems already in place to create a livable community.
In anticipating the growth of its various neighborhoods and ‘urban villages’, Arlington
County has shown tremendous foresight and vision. The legal-basis for the transportation
element of Arlington’s site plan review process dates back to 1990. Built upon the larger siteplan review process discussed above, the transportation element focuses on Transportation
Demand Management, and focuses on promotion of multi-modal transportation systems to
reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicles on Arlington’s roads (Arlington County
Government, 2008).
Elements of Arlington’s TDM Policy
The underlying policy document discusses seven different elements of the TDM process as
pertaining to site plans.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Ridesharing promotion*
Parking management*
Transit promotion*
On-site construction measures
Mutually agreed off-site provisions or contributions
Lease agreements
Monitoring and compliance*

Of those elements, the four designated with an asterisk are elements in which TDM has
involvement and influence. The policy document sets some of the overall strategies for
managing these elements. Many of these have evolved over time. In most cases, strategies
are unique to the specific characteristics and needs of a particular site.
Ridesharing Promotion
Strategies here are designed to support the formation of carpool and vanpool programs at
commercial buildings. Typically, these involve marketing tools and support to help building
users access local and regional ride-sharing information. Certain sites may also include
dedicated parking requirements to accommodate vanpool and carpool groups.

31

Parking management
Parking management strategies for site plans can include dedicated parking
for hybrid or electric vehicles. Parking management programs also set
parking minimums or maximums, setting a benchmark for the amount of
parking required at a site. Incentive programs designed to limit driving and
encourage other modes are also covered here.
Transit promotion
Marketing tools and programs designed to encourage and support the use of
public transportation are often included in a site’s TDM requirements.
Additionally, some sites may operate dedicated shuttles, or subsidize sitespecific transportation modes for building users.
Monitoring and Compliance

Figure 12:
Transportation
Display Unit
from ATP

In almost all cases, sites are required to dedicate a staff member as ‘Property Transportation
Coordinator’, to serve as the site’s contact and resource for transportation programs. Also,
County and ATP staff serves as program managers for each site to ensure that their
transportation demand management elements are being incorporated in a way that aligns
with County requirements.
Creating Better Partners with TDM
Through its outreach with developers and property managers as part of the site-plan process,
ATP has developed strong relationships with many building operators. Increasingly, ATP
has received feedback suggesting that there exists opportunities for the site-plan process to
better foster a culture of collaboration with these clients, and help build stronger TDM
programs. With the current TDM policy in place, buildings are mandated as to exactly
which TDM elements they must implement at their site. In most cases, this includes a
transportation information display kiosk, the purchase of SmarTrip cards for building users,
and a number of other strategies. Feedback has been particularly strong from building
developers regarding the kiosks, with the argument being that the units are expensive,
unattractive and do not create a cohesive relationship with the rest of the building.
To learn more about developer preferences, a survey was developed and sent to over 100
property managers and developers that have participated in Arlington’s site plan process
(Appendix B). The survey asked primarily about the feelings of developers and property
managers regarding the large display kiosk. In all, 24 responses were collected, offering
insight into thoughts and feelings surrounding the kiosk, as well as other TDM elements
associated with site-plans. Of the 24 who responses, 18 were mandated by the County to
install a transportation kiosk. Most purchased the unit in Figure 11 above.
When asked to rate how well the kiosk contributed to the aesthetics of their lobby, 58% of
respondents said that the kiosk has a neutral or negative effect. One respondent commented,
“Information very quickly becomes out of date and is not a modern, advance design like
most of the new buildings being developed.”

32

Rating the overall effectiveness of the kiosk in providing information (in the form of
brochures and a static map) to users, the respondents responded with an average of 6.7 out of
10, suggesting that while it may not look great, the primary function of displaying
information is accomplished. Respondents also suggested that the kiosks do not function
well in areas of trip planning, or providing information about local services and amenities.
Ranked most effective was the ability of the kiosk to provide brochures (see additional
analysis of brochures later in the report).
Respondents were also asked about ways in which the kiosk could be improved. From a list
of 10 options, the most popular were technologically based – incorporating a video screen
(such as TransitScreen) into the kiosk framework, and including the ability to directly
download transit maps and schedule information into a smartphone, either through a QR
code, or some other means. Also frequently mentioned was enhancing the maps to provide
clearer information about bus routes and destinations.
With the kiosks serving as just one example, it is clear that the opportunity exists to create a
better suite of TDM solutions, and better engage developers and property managers in
forming their TDM site-plan requirements. Given the right solutions, property managers will
be more likely to become advocates for alternative transportation, and better partners with
Arlington County and ATP.
ModeScore for Arlington County Site Plans
The recommendation of this section is to incorporate ModeScore into the site-plan process
by setting a target for buildings to achieve a specified level of multi-modal access as part of
its TDM site-plan strategy. In keeping with the theme of providing access to options, this
strategy would allow developers to build their value-added ModeScore by selecting from a
bank of County approved TDM measures. Several notable examples already exist in the
U.S. of jurisdictions taking a ‘choice’ approach to mandating TDM programs (City of
Pasadena, 2013) (CUTR, 2008).
Appendix C contains a sample “Certificate of Occupancy Checklist” that a site-plan is
required to fulfill. This document outlines at a high level the specific TDM elements that
must be completed by the site prior to occupancy. The inflexibility of this mandate is largely
what contributes to a lack of true partnership with building level clients. By incorporating
feedback into developing new TDM elements, and shifting the focus to a more collaborative
approach to multi-modal mobility, buildings and relationships can be enhanced.
Location Based Score
The County should first consider location-based data when assigning a target ModeScore for
each site. For the dense transit corridor that includes the neighborhoods of Rosslyn,
Courthouse, Clarendon, VA Square and Ballston, the average location baseline score ranges
from 71-78. So, a reasonable target for that corridor could be 78. More important is the
incorporation of TDM elements to achieve a total targeted ModeScore.
Adding Value Through TDM
Currently, the best performing building in this study has a ModeScore of 107.4. However, by
creating this increased flexibility for developers, the Arlington could reasonably expect

33

greater participation toward TDM goals. Coupled with Arlington’s continued investment in
improving transportation access through infrastructure – adding Zipcars, bike programs and
additional bus access, this paper proposes a target ModeScore above what has already been
measured.
All buildings within the County’s site plan process should be expected to generate at least 30
points in the TDM added value toward their final ModeScore. So, for a building in Rosslyn
with an expected location baseline of 78, Arlington County could require a total ModeScore
for a new development of 110, requiring 32 points coming from TDM measures (note: as
new TDM programs are developed, these can be added to ModeScore).
The County could still require certain elements of importance (such as pre-loaded SmarTrip
cards), while also providing increased flexibility for developers, and creating more robust
multi-modal TDM plans. Based on the TDM elements already incorporated into
ModeScore, a sample program might look like Figure 12 below (note: elements marked with
** are not currently included as Arlington County site-plan elements).

1776 Wilson Boulevard

High Impact Strategies
Secure Bike Storage
Free/Discounted
vanpool/carpool parking
Provide SmarTrip Cards
Provide Transit Benefit
/Subsidy Program
Install Showers/Lockers
Provide Shuttle to Transit
Medium Impact Strategies
Bicycle Friendly Business
Designation**
Provide a bike-benefit
subsidy**
Provide Car share or
Bikeshare membership
Information Display Kiosk
Install Electronic Display**
Designated Telework
Resources
LEED Certification**
Capital Bikeshare Station
Sponsorship**
Low Impact Strategies
Welcome Packets

Total ModeScore
TDM Points Needed: 33.25
Required: 105
Location Baseline =
71.75
Max Points
Choose at least 4 strategies:
2
4
4
4
2
4
Max points
4

Choose at least 5 strategies

2
4
2
3
2
3
2
Max Points
1

Choose at least 5 strategies

34

Meet with ATP
Host Transportation Fair**
Designate PTC Contact
Distribute Info
ATP Quick Glance
Transit info on website
Additional Strategies
Approved by County
Strategies used

1
1
1
1
2
3
Max 4 points

Optional

Figure 13: ple TDM Program Outline

Using the tiered program above, the County could still generate significant participation in a
way that ensures the most crucial elements of existing TDM plans are still met. With this
new strategy, buildings will feel included in the process, and be more willing to participate
toward developing a comprehensive TDM program for their building.
Also, the County could offer increased flexibility within the innovation credits offered to
developers. The County is currently exploring ideas to offset increased parking minimums
for new developments. Among the ideas being considered is increased funding for TDM
programs. One development currently undergoing the site plan process in Arlington is
required to contribute 10 cents per square foot to TDM improvements for the property. For
this particular building, this amounts to roughly $28,000.00 annually that must be spent by
the developer. Based on how developers propose to spend these funds, they could increase
the site’s ModeScore.

Limitations and Areas for Expansion
This initial analysis and application of ModeScore was created using existing data from
Arlington County buildings compiled by Arlington Transportation Partners. Data for siteplans was readily available, while the ModeScores developed for the 48 non site-plan
properties were limited based on the specific data held in ATP’s database. In many cases,
this data was limited, perhaps leading to lower than expected scores. Also, for site-plan
buildings, data was compiled for some based on what a building is required to do – there are
instances where TDM elements have yet to be verified by County staff. ModeScore was built
on the assumption that required elements had been implemented.
It should be pointed out that the site-plan regulations in Arlington County are extremely
robust, and are not typical of other jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction has its own system of
development, and in most jurisdictions, TDM programs exists that can support that
development. ModeScore is a tool that must be customized for each jurisdiction based on its
unique location and value added characteristics.
Due to data limitations, parking was an area that was largely unaddressed by this study.
Each development in Arlington must adhere to set parking minimums. A further application
of ModeScore could be to incorporate the amount of available parking, and how accessible
parking is for building users. For example, a residential property that does not bundle
parking with rent, and limits the number of spaces per unit, could have a higher ModeScore
than a similar building that offers free parking.

35

ModeScore represents an opportunity for TDM agencies to build relationships with
employers, developers and property managers through helping them create a total value of
their location and value based TDM strategies. ModeScore helps create more comprehensive
building strategies that favor a variety of transportation options, underlying the most
important fundamental of transportation demand management practices that the best way to
encourage alternative transportation modes is to provide access to a number of different
options.

36

Works Cited
APTA. (2013). Millennials and Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset.
American Public Transportation Association.
Arlington County Government. (2008). Arlington County TDM Policy Statement.
Retrieved October 2013, from CommuterPage:
http://www.commuterpage.com/tasks/sites/cp/assets/File/TDM_Policy1990_200
8.pdf
Arlington County Government. (2013). Arlington, VA 2013 Demographic Profile.
Arlington CPHD. (n.d.). Arlington County Planning Process. Retrieved from
Arlingtonva.us:
http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/CPHD/planning/docs/CPHDPlanningD
ocsPlanningProcess.aspx
Arlington Economic Development. (2013). Silver Linings: The 2013 Arlington Real
Estate Market Review and Forecast. Arlington, VA: AED.
Arlington Transportation Partners. (2013). Arlington Transportation Partners Client
Database. (ATP, Ed.)
Baxandall, P. e. (2013). A New Way To Go: The Transportation Apps and Vehicle Sharing
Tools That Are Giving More Americans The Freedom to Drive Less. US PIRG.
Bikeshare, C. (2013). Capital Bikeshare Data Dashboard.
Bruntland. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
CarFreeDiet.com. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2013, from Arlington's Urban Villages:
http://www.carfreediet.com/pages/arlingtons-urban-villages/
Change, E., Tucker, N., Yates, C., & Davis, M. (2013, September). March of the
Millennials. The Washington Post.
City of Pasadena. (2013). City of Pasadena Trip Reduction Ordinance. Pasadena,
CA.
ComScore. (2013, September). September 2013 US Smartphone Market Share. Retrieved
from
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/11/comScore_Reports_
September_2013_U.S._Smartphone_Subscriber_Market_Share
CUTR. (2008). Trip Reduction Ordinances. Tampa, FL
.

37

Deaken, E., Frick, K., & Shively, K. (2011, February). Markets for Dynamic
Ridesharing: Case of Berkeley California. Berkeley, CA.
Diggins, L. (2013). 2013 Capital Bikeshare Membership Survey.
Diggins, L. a. (2013). Residential Building Transportation Performance Monitoring Study.
Arlington County Commuter Services
EPA. (2013, June). Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the
Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation and Environmental Quality.
Washington, DC.
EPA. (2011). Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
EPA, U. Model Trip Reduction Ordinances. EPA.
Fairfax County Government. (2009). The Proffer System in Fairfax County. Fairfax
County.
FHWA. (2011). What is Dynamic Ridesharing? What is Dynamic Ridesharing? .
Washington, DC.
Kotkin, J. (2013, November). Are Millennials Turning Their Backs on the American
Dream. New Geography.
Leinberger, C. (2012). DC: The Walk-Up Wake Up Call. Washington: The George
Washington University School Of Business.
Leinberger, C. (2007). Footloose and Fancy Free: A Field Survey of Walkable Urban Places
in the Top 30 Metro Areas. Metropolitan Policy Program. The Brookings Institute.
Litman, T. (2013, June). The New Transportation Planning Paradigm. Institute of
Transportation Engineers Journal , 1-5.
Marantz-Henig, R. (2010, August). What Is It About 20-Somethings? The New York
Times .
Monday Properties. (2013). 1812 N. Moore . Retrieved December 2013, from
www.1812NMore.com
MWCOG. (2013). Commuter Connections 2013 State of the Commute Survey Results.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Commuter Connections.
MWCOG. (2013). Regional Transportation Priorities Plan for the National Capital Region.
Transportation Planning Board.

38

NCMM. (2013). Making First/Last Mile Connections to Transit. National Center for
Mobility Management.
O'Connell, J. (2013, December). Every Foot Matters When It Comes to Real Estate
Near Metro. The Washington Post.
Pew . (2010). Millennials - Confident. Connected. Open to Change. Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center. (2013, February). PewInternet: Mobile. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/February/Pew-Internet-Mobile.aspx
Rampell, C. (2009). Great Recession: A Brief Etymology. The New York Times.
Schuman, B. (2010). Impact of Sustainability on Property Values. CoStar.
SIR, Inc. (2013). Arlington Economic Development Young Professional Study. Southern
Institute of Research, Inc.
Sivak, M. (2013). Has Motorization in the U.S. Peaked? Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
Soneji, S. (2013). Incorporating Cost Effectiveness into Health Impact Calculations.
Arlington: Simple Solutions.
Speck, J. (2013). Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time.
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Thompson, R. (2013). Development of Standard Performance Measures for
Transportation Demand Management Programs. The Journal of the Transportation
Board.
Today's Smart Choice: Don't Own. Share. (2011). TIME.
TransitScreen. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.transitscreen.com
U.S DOT. (2010). 2009 National Household Travel Survey. U.S. DOT FHWA.
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). 2012 Population Estimates. Washington, DC, USA.
US FHWA. (2013). Travel Demand Management. Retrieved November 2013, from
OPS.FHWA.DOT.gov: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tdm/
VTPI (2008). Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from
TDM Encyclopedia: www.vtpi.org/tdm
Walkscore. (n.d.). Walkscore. Retrieved November 2013, from www.walkscore.com

39

WRIT. (2013). Washington Real Estate Investment Trust. Retrieved December 2013,
from 160 Wilson Property Detail:
http://www.writ.com/propertyDetail.php?recID=24
Zipcar. (2011). Millennials and Driving. Zipcar.

40

Appendix A – Sample of ATP Quick Glance Guide

ation Benefits & Servic
nsport
es
Tra
Rob Carter is AMCC’s Property Transportation Coordinator.
He can help with questions about transportation options,
transit beneﬁt programs and parking for carpools and
vanpools.

Biking and Walking

CommuterPage.com
Visit CarFreeDiet.com/columbia-pike-transportation or
CommuterPage.com to learn more about your
available commuting options or call (703) 228-RIDE.

Bus Service

ated near the
W&OD Trails here are bike
on
Arlington.com

Carpooling and Vanpooling
Looking to share the ride with coworkers or neighbors?

A number of different bus lines stop in the urban village
of Columbia Pike on both Arlington Transit and Metrobus.
Columbia Pike is serviced by:
•
Arlington Transit (ART): 41 to Ballston/Courthouse
•
ART 45 to Rosslyn
•
ART 75 to Shirlington/Virginia Square
•
Metrobus: 16A, B, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, P, W, Y
to Pentagon/Pentagon City/Crystal City

Closest Metro — Pentagon
Guaranteed Ride Home
If you regularly commute to work by transit, pooling or walk/
bike, you are eligible for the free Guaranteed Ride Home
program – providing FREE rides home (up to 4 times a year).
Sign up by visiting commuterconnections.org.

Capital Bikeshare
Capital Bikeshare members can use bikes located throughout
the County for commuting, errands and other short trips
throughout the day. The closest location to this site is
Visit capitalbikeshare.com to sign up and see all station locations in your
area, or download the Spotcycle smartphone app.

Pentagon Metrorail Station (Blue and Yellow Lines)
At the intersection of Columbia Pike
and Washington Boulevard
Station Opens at 5:05 AM (M-F)

Arlington Mill
Community Center

Car Sharing
Car sharing is a system of shared access to vehicles parked in
your community or at nearby transit stations. Locally, Zipcar
provides a program that offers users a clean and well maintained automobile with a full tank of gas that they can drive
for as long as needed and only pay for the time they use.
There are numerous Zipcars located in
. Check out
zipcar.com to sign up and locate the cars closest to you.

The Commuter Store — Shirlington
Visit one of 4 Arlington Commuter Stores to buy transit
passes, load money onto your SmarTrip card, or grab transit
schedule information. Stores are located in Ballston, Rosslyn,
Crystal City and Shirlington.
Shirlington*
2975 S Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22206
Hours: Mon-Fri 10:00 a.m. - 7:00 pm
*Additional Commuter Stores are located in Rosslyn,
Crystal City and Ballston

Arlington’s Car-Free Diet
Visit carfreediet.com for information on how you can save
money and burn calories by driving your car less!

Nearby Stations:
S George Mason Dr & Four Mile Run
S George Mason Dr & 13th St S

41

Creating Better Places with Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

Creating Better Places with Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Creating Better Places with Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

Similar a Creating Better Places with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (20)

Más de Mobility Lab

Más de Mobility Lab (20)

Último

Último (20)

Creating Better Places with Transportation Demand Management (TDM)