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

2

Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction to Transportation Demand Management 4 Benefits of TDM 4 Measuring TDM Success 5 TDM and Sustainable Development 6 A Brief Background on Arlington, VA 7 Regional Context – State of Travel and Planning 7 A Regional Model for the Rest of the Country 8 Sustainable Development in Arlington 9 New Frontiers for TDM 10 A Shifting Paradigm – TDM in the Spotlight 10 Shifting Preferences – The Millennial Topic 11 The Rise of Collaborative Consumption 12 Alternative Workspaces 12 New Transportation Modes Enhanced by Technology 12 Emerging Technologies Helping to Reshape the TDM Industry 14 Options, Options, Options 16 New Opportunities to Embrace Multi-Modalism 16 Multi-Modal Transportation Score – Measuring Transportation Access at the Building Level 16 Using Transportation Amenities to Fill Vacancies 17 Methodology 18 Explanation of TDM Interventions 20 Compiling ModeScore 21 Limitations and Weighting 22 Results 26 What is a Good ModeScore ? 26 Further Comparison of Site Plan vs. Non Site Plan Performance 28 ModeScore as a Tool for Buildings 29 Opportunities for Supporting Sustainable Development – A Policy Recommendation for Arlington County, VA 30 Elements of Arlington’s TDM Policy 31 Creating Better Partners with TDM 32 ModeScore for Arlington County Site Plans 34 Limitations and Areas for Expansion 35 Works Cited 37 Appendix A – Sample ATP Quick Glance 41 Appendix B – Transportation Display Kiosk Survey 42 Appendix C – Sample ‘Certificate of Occupancy’ Checklist 43

3

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.

4

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 single-occupancy 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

5

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. 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.

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.

TD

M

Outreach

Information

Subsidies

Beh

avio

r C

hang

es

Less VMT

More Active Travel

Cost savings

Shift between modes

Det

erm

inan

t

More Physical Activity

Less Stress

Less Exposure to Pollution

Less Traffic Accidents

Hea

lth

Impa

cts Longer life

Healtheri Life

Fewer injuries/diseases

Cos

t Sav

ings

Individual

Community

6

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 Social Environmental Traffic congestion Mobility barriers Crash damages

Transportation facility costs Consumer transportation

costs Depletion of non-renewable

resources

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

Aesthetics

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).

7

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 • 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-

Figure 3: Map of MWCOG Jurisdictions

8

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.

9

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 single-occupancy-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

10

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).

11

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 so-called 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).

12

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.

13

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.

14

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

15

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 bicycle-sharing 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 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 real-time, 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).

Figure 6: A Transit Screen in a Building Lobby

16

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 single-occupancy-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

17

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.

18

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.

Table 1: Building Demographic Variables

Variable Code Variable Description Data Source Name Familiar name of building ATP Client Database BLD# Assigned building number Assigned SP# Arlington County Site Plan

Building ATP Client Database

ADDY Property address ATP Client Database

Figure 7: Map of Arlington Building Neighborhoods

19

RES Residential property ATP Client Database ZIP Property zip code ATP Client Database

NHOOD Neighborhood within Arlington

ATP Client Database

Table 2: Location Specific Variables

Variable Code Variable Description Data Source WALK Walk Score Walkscore.com BIKE Bike Score Walkscore.com

TRANS Transit Score Walkscore.com METRO Walking distance to nearest

Metro station WMATA.com and Google

Maps BUS25 # of bus lines within .25

miles WMATA.com – Services

Nearby BIKE25 # of on-street bike lanes

within .25 miles BikeArlington, Arlington

County GIS data SAFEBIKE Additional designated ‘safe

biking streets’ within .5 miles Arlington County Bike Map, Arlington County

GIS data BIKETRAIL Paved bike trail access within

.5 miles BikeArlington, Arlington

County GIS data CABI25 Capital Bikeshare stations

within .25 miles Capitalbikeshare.com,

Arlington County GIS data CABI5 Additional Bikeshare

stations within .5 miles Capitalbikeshare.com,

Arlington County GIS data ZIPCAR Zipcar access within

neighborhood Zipcar.com

CAR2GO Car2Go access within .5 miles of site

Car2go.com

LYFT Lyft/Sidecar/other dynamic ridesharing access

Lyft.com; sidecar.com

VRE Access to commuter rail Virginia Railway Express, Google Maps

COMMBUS Access to commuter bus options

Omniride.com, CommuterConnections.org

DCCIRC Access to DC Circulator Bus Dccirculator.com Table 3: TDM Value Add Variables

Variable Code Variable Description Data Source BFB Bicycle Friendly Business

designation Bicycle League of America,

ATP database BIKEBEN Property offers a bike

commuter benefit ATP Client Database

INFODIST Property distributes transportation info to

residents/tenants

ATP Client Database; Arlington County Site Plan

Database BSTORAGE Property offers secure bicycle ATP database, Arlington

20

storage County Site Plan database, site visits

ATPQG ATP prepared ‘Quick Glance’ guide for property

ATP Client Database

POOL Free or discounted parking for carpools/vanpools

ATP Database, Arlington County Site Plan Database

CARMEM Property offers subsidized car sharing memberships

Arlington County Site Plan Database, property websites

LEED Property LEED certification US Green Building Council, property web sites

STCARD Property offers free SmarTrip card

ATP Client Database, Arlington County Site Plan

Database SHOWER Property offers

shower/locker facilities ATP Client Database,

Arlington County Site Plan Database

SHUTTLE Property offers shuttle to transit

ATP Client Database, site visits, property websites

TID Property offers a lobby transportation display

ATP Client Database, Arlington County Site Plan

Database, site visits WEB Property website offers

transportation information Property websites

SCREEN Property installs electronic screen with transit info

Property websites, site visits, ATP database

MEETING Meetings with ATP and/or transportation ‘events’ on

site

ATP database, site visits

TRANBEN Property offers subsidized transit benefit program

ATP Client Database, Arlington County Site Plan

Database PTC Property designates a

‘Property Transportation Coordinator’

ATP Client Database, Arlington County Site Plan

Database TELEWORK Property offers telework

facilities (residential only) Arlington County Site Plan

Database WELCOME Property offers welcome

packets to new tenants ATP Client Database,

Arlington County Site Plan Database

INNOV Innovation Points – above and beyond

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

21

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

Carpooling Transit Biking Walking Other

66.1% 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

Carpooling Transit Bus Bike/Walk Other

45% 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.

22

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.

23

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 Weighting/Calculation Max Score WALK 40% of measured score 40 TRANS 15% of measured score 15

BIKE 20% of measured score 15 METRO 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

5

BUS25 0.5 points for each bus line1within ¼ miles 6 BIKE25 0.5 points for each dedicated on-street

bike lane within 1/4 miles 2

SAFEBIKE 0.5 points for ‘safe’ streets within ¼ mile 2 BIKETRAIL 0.5 points for each bike trail accessible

within 1/4 mile, or directly via bike lane 1.5

BIKESHOP 1 point for bicycle shop within 1/2 mile 1 CABI25 1 point for each Capital Bikeshare station

within 1/4 mile 4

CABI5 0.5 point for each additional Capital Bikeshare station within 1/2 mile

2

ZIPCAR 0.25 points for each Zipcar available in neighborhood

3.25

CAR2GO 1 point for access to Car2Go within ½ mile

1

LYFT 0.5 points for building within coverage area of LYFT or Sidecar

0.5

VRE 0.5 point for building within ½ mile of VRE commuter train

0.5

COMMBUS 0.5 point for building within ¼ mile of commuter bus

0.5

DCCIRC 0.75 points for building within ¼ mile of DC Circulator route

0.75

Total: 100

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

24

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.

25

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 Weighting/Calculation Maximum Score BFB 4 points for BFB designation 4

BIKEBEN 2 points for $20/month bike benefit 2

BSTORAGE 2 points for secure, indoor bicycle storage

2

INFODIST 1 point for distributes info to tenants/residents

1

ATPQG 2 points if posts a “Quick Glance” guide prepared by ATP

2

POOL 4 points if offers discount/free parking to Vanpool/Carpool

4

CARMEM 4 points if offers subsidized car sharing membership

4

LEED Points for LEED Certification: Platinum = 3 points

Gold = 2 points Silver = 1 points

3

STCARD 4 points if provide SmarTrip card (with value) to users. 2 points if no value

4

SHOWER 2 points if building has shower/locker facilities for use

2

SHUTTLE 4 points if building provides free shuttle to transit

4

TID 2 points if building provides lobby Transportation Info Display kiosk

2

WEB Points for website transportation info: Multiple modes + links = 3 points

Multiple modes = 2 points Metro only = 1 point

Driving directions only = 0 points

3

26

SCREEN 3 points if invest in electronic transportation screen w/ real-time data

feed

3

MEETING 2 points if ATP involved in meetings/events

2

TRANBEN 3 points if provide transit benefit subsidy to all building users

3

PTC 1 point if designate “Property Transportation Coordinator” for site

1

WELCOME 2 points if provide welcome packet for new tenants/residents

2

TELEWORK 2 points if provide telework resources 2 INNOV Additional points for innovations not

included in above criteria (subjective) 4

Total 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.

27

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 Crystal City

VA Square Clarendon Other

# of Buildings 26 41 21 14 19 12 Courthouse Lee

Highway Ft.

Myer Columbia

Pike Shirlington Total

23 6 1 20 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

Mean LOCSCORE

Max LOCSCORE

Mean MODESCORE

Max MODESCORE

Rosslyn (26) 74.6 81.85 85.8 107.4 Ballston (41) 78 84.5 88.5 107.4 Crystal City

(21) 65.8 71.1 71.5 88

VA Square (14) 74.6 79.7 82.3 95.7

Mul

ti-M

odea

l Tra

vel S

uppo

rter

Mul

ti-M

odal

Tra

vel P

rom

oter

Mul

ti-M

odal

Und

erpe

rfor

mer

Mul

ti-M

odal

Tra

vel L

eade

r 100+

At least 15 from TDM 81-100

At least 10 TDM 60-80

At least 5 TDM 59 or less,

including TDM

28

Clarendon (19) 73.4 76.9 84.7 106.9 Courthouse

(23) 71.3 78.15 81.9 102

Lee Highway (6)

54.5 60.4 60.5 71.4

Ft. Myer (1) 46.2 46.2 73.2 73.2 Columbia Pike

(20) 54.5 67.4 62.9 85.7

Shirlington (7) 57.1 64.6 75.2 93.5 Other (12) 54.1 63.7 65.5 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

Max LOCSCORE

Mean MODESCORE

Max MODESCORE

Site Plan (158) 69.8 84.5 80.9 107.35 Non-Site Plan (42)

65.11 82.3 69.9

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 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).

Figure 9: 1812. N. Moore rendering

29

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 site-plan 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 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.

Figure 10: 1600 Wilson Boulevard

30

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.

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

Multi-Modal Transportation

Score

100/150

Location Base Score: 75

Benefits and

Amenities Score: 25

31

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 site-plan 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. Ridesharing promotion* 2. Parking management* 3. Transit promotion* 4. On-site construction measures 5. Mutually agreed off-site provisions or contributions 6. Lease agreements 7. 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.

32

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 site-specific transportation modes for building users. Monitoring and Compliance 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.”

Figure 12: Transportation Display Unit from ATP

33

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

34

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

Total ModeScore Required: 105

Location Baseline = 71.75

TDM Points Needed: 33.25

High Impact Strategies Max Points Choose at least 4 strategies: Secure Bike Storage 2

Free/Discounted vanpool/carpool parking

4

Provide SmarTrip Cards 4 Provide Transit Benefit

/Subsidy Program 4

Install Showers/Lockers 2 Provide Shuttle to Transit 4 Medium Impact Strategies Max points Choose at least 5 strategies Bicycle Friendly Business

Designation** 4

Provide a bike-benefit subsidy**

2

Provide Car share or Bikeshare membership

4

Information Display Kiosk 2 Install Electronic Display** 3

Designated Telework Resources

2

LEED Certification** 3 Capital Bikeshare Station

Sponsorship** 2

Low Impact Strategies Max Points Choose at least 5 strategies Welcome Packets 1

35

Meet with ATP 1 Host Transportation Fair** 1

Designate PTC Contact 1 Distribute Info 1

ATP Quick Glance 2 Transit info on website 3 Additional Strategies Approved by County

Max 4 points Optional

Strategies used 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 site-plans 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.

36

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.

37

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_2008.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/CPHDPlanningDocsPlanningProcess.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 .

38

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.

39

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

40

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.

41

Appendix A – Sample of ATP Quick Glance Guide

Transportation Bene!ts & ServicesRob 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 Walkingated near the

W&OD Trails here are bike on

Arlington.com

Carpooling and VanpoolingLooking to share the ride with coworkers or neighbors?

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 BikeshareCapital 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 capitalbike-share.com to sign up and see all station locations in your area, or download the Spotcycle smartphone app.

Nearby Stations:

S George Mason Dr & 13th St S

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 ServiceA 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 — PentagonPentagon Metrorail Station (Blue and Yellow Lines)

At the intersection of Columbia Pike and Washington Boulevard

Station Opens at 5:05 AM (M-F)

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 main-tained 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 — ShirlingtonVisit 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 DietVisit carfreediet.com for information on how you can save money and burn calories by driving your car less!

Arlington Mill Community Center

S George Mason Dr & Four Mile Run

42

Appendix B – Transportation Display Kiosk Survey

Transit(Info(Display(Survey/Interview(for(Property(Managers/Developers:(

1. Do(you(have(a(transportation(information(display(kiosk,(purchased(from(ATP,(in(your(building(lobby?((

a. Yes,(wallFmounted(b. Yes,(freestanding(c. No(

2. How(do(you(feel(the(kiosk(contributes(to(the(character/aesthetics(of(your(space?(Is(it(a(positive(or(negative(effect?(1F10?(

3. How(would(you(rate(the(effectiveness(of(the(kiosk(in(providing(transportation(information(to(building(users?(1F10(

a. How(do(you(feel(this(could(be(improved?(4. What(have(you(observed(about(how(your(building(users(engage(with(the(kiosk?((

a. Is(it(building(inhabitants,(or(visitors?(b. Users(are(regularly(taking(brochures(c. The(kiosk(is(rarely(used(d. Users(frequently(have(questions(after(accessing(the(kiosk(

5. Is(your(kiosk(mounted(on(the(wall,(or(freeFstanding?(6. If(you(are(a(building(concierge/desk(staff,(how(often(do(you(direct(people(with(questions(to(the(

transportation(kiosk?(a. Very(often(b. Somewhat(often(c. Rarely(d. Never(e. n/a(

7. Do(you(feel(this(is(a(worthwhile(investment(for(your(property?(a. Why(or(why(not(

8. In(what(other(ways(do(you(promote(sustainable(transportation(at(your(site?(9. Does(your(lobby(have(a(video(or(electronic(screen(that(regularly(displays(information(relevant(to(

building(users?(a. If(yes,(is(transportation(information(included?(

10. What(suggestions(do(you(have(to(improve(the(kiosk,(or(other(ways(to(provide(transportation(information(to(building(users?(

11. Would(you(be(willing(to(provide(additional(feedback,(via(phone(interview,(about(your(experiences(with(the(kiosk,(and(other(transportation(programs(at(your(site?(

a. Contact(info(

43

Appendix C – Sample ‘Certificate of Occupancy’ Checklist

SP #411 1900 Wilson Blvd – 19Nineteen Clarendon Apartments Pre-Certificate of Occupancy Checklist

(This checklist is a supporting tool; it is not a substitute for reading, understanding, and addressing the site plan conditions)

This list was provided to Tom Benson via email on 06/24/13

Task #

Description Condition Reference

1 Complete and get approval for TDM Plan (document)

51

2 Establish relationship with Arlington Transportation Partners (ATP)

51, Participation and Funding, a

3 Designate and train PTC in Knowledge Standards (ATP)

51, Participation and Funding, b

4 First of 30 annual payments (adjusted for inflation by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator from the date of site plan approval.)

51, Participation and Funding, c

5 Order and pay for Kiosk (ATP) (installation can occur before first partial for tenant occupancy)

51, Facilities and Improvements, a

6 Provide in the lobby the means to call a taxi

51, Facilities and Improvements, b

7 Provide onsite business center

51, Facilities and Improvements, c

8 Comply with requirement to provide bicycle parking/storage facilities, showers and lockers, according to approved standards and ratios.

51, Facilities and Improvements, d

9 Provide a onetime contribution of up to $11,000 for bus stop improvements.

51, Facilities and Improvements, e

10 Submit (to parking staff) and gain approval for Parking Management Plan that adequately addresses all subjects listed in this subsection.

51, Parking Management Plan, a

11 Indicate completion and approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan

51, Parking Management Plan, c

12 Contact carsharing agency(ies) to identify interest, options, for placement of up to two (2) car sharing vehicles in the garage, in accordance with this subsection.

51, Parking Management Plan, d

13 Order initial SmarTrip cards for residential lessees or purchasers ($25.00 fare media), on-site employees of office or retail tenants

51, Promotions, Services, Policies, a-c