CI 2009 SSc3.2: Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms

What's the reasoning for not providing bike racks or showering facilities?

client/users not interested in showers, bike racks will be provided, but was thinking since retail allows you to only provide a lockable changing room that perhaps this credit could be approached with that intent.

any insight into why leed for retail doesn't require showers?

Simon, our experience in this kind of situation has been that LEED does not allow you to round down—you must always round up. So you would need one shower. Which I think makes sense here—if you're not offering showing facilities, the credit simply doesn't fit.

The number of shower stalls is the number that matters, not the number of changing rooms. Since you meet the required number of showers for both your space and also for the whole building, I wouldn't worry too much about changing the FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. coming from PI Form 3, just add a short narrative explaining the FTE for the whole building and the total number of shower stalls.

PERFECT.... thank you very much!

Yes, we've seen this credit approved for projects approved where access to showers required a monthly fee. Access to sufficient bike racks, however, needs to be free.

Thanks David. If the tenant is not willing to pay the monthly fee - I guess we cannot opt. for this credit - correct?

If I understand your question correctly, the tenant of an office building (an Accounting firm, for example) is not expected to buy health club memberships for any and all of their employees who might want to use the health club for showering. If an individual employee of the accounting firm wants to use a shower, and there is one available in the health club for a reasonable fee, even if the employee has to pay it, I think the requirements have been met. In one example we've seen, individual building users had the option of paying a $40 monthly fee for use of a shower and locker.

Since I've not seen any official interpretation of your situation, I'm only guessing that If the only way for an employee to have access to a shower is to buy a full health club membership, with unlimited access to all equipment and facilities, that might not meet the intent of the credit. If bike commuters have the choice of a discounted, limited membership that at least allows them to shower, that seems more in keeping with the credit intent. A CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide is probably necessary to find out for sure.

Hi David, thank you very much for the response!!
Yes - The client that is pursuing for LEED is one of the Tenant's in the Building.

As of now our project meets one of the two credit requirements of the credit - i.e. Free bike racks are provided for the commuters.

For the second requirement - The client is not willing to buy the club membership for all of their employees inorder to access the showers at this time. Incase they do have employees that are willing to pay for the showers and use them, how do we document that requirement?

To document the shower access you'd want to show a floor plan that indicates the location and number of showers and include a narrative in the credit form describing membership options that employees would have. Perhaps the tenant can negotiate an agreement with the health club for limited shower-access-only membership for their bike commuters. You may want to provide a copy of any membership forms or other agreements.

Thank You very much for the quick response! Appreciate it!

Sounds like you would meet the intent of the requirements if the showers are within the overall tenant space. That they are also within 200 yards of the lounge entry, the space pursuing LEED CI, only helps. The credit wording doesn't appear to require the showers to be within 200 yards of the building entry if they are within the tenant space, especially given the context of a large airport. Hope that helps!

Paola, you can pursue the credit, but you'll have to have bike racks sufficient for your FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. today, not the CS design. It sounds like you may not be able to earn the credit under these conditions, unfortunately.

I think the credit language is clear that the 200 yard distance is to the facilities themselves. You'd have to kind of blur your eyes to read it as entrance to entrance.

Let me clarify my question, our situation is the following: our FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. requires only one shower. There is a shower accessible to our occupants in a nearby building, but the actual showers are on an upper level. The form requires a site plan to show the distance from our building entrance to the 'shower facility' so would we have to count the walking distance (including stairs) from our building entrance to the shower room?

Since your situation is not explicitly addressed in the credit it's hard to anticipate if a particular reviewer will interpret the wording any differently than Tristan did above. The design phase preliminary review will give you a chance to see how the existing shower is viewed in your case, and thus gives you time to see if you need to pursue any other credits.

I think I would take the same approach you did and look at it on a 24-hour cycle, and look for overlaps and maximums. I think you have the right approach.

The FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. information should not be contradictory between credits, but as you point out there are cases where different information is needed.

For SSc3, peak use is more relevant.

For WEc1, annual use is more relevant, so adjust your calculations accordingly.

You didn't ask this question, but have you considered whether you can pursue LEED-CI for just one floor, and not other floors used by the same client? If you haven't already, check the stipulation of MPR#2 in the MPR supplemental guidance doc.

To answer your question: yes, you can take this approach if the space meets the other requirements for access (distance, etc.)

However, I think the MPR issue is very relevant here, and with good reason.

Yes, the project is LEED-CI. The client is expanding into an additional floor in the building. The client's other already-occupied floors are not being renovated.

You make a good point. It seems our only option to achieve this credit is to apply only the project's FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. to the existing bike storage and showers (not the client's total FTE within the building) or else we begin to toe the line in not complying with MPR#2.

We will also need to keep in mind for future projects in the building for the client, we cannot take these same measures, but will need to provide additional bike storage and showers project-by-project.

I'm not aware of a set process for this. If it's an existing project you can do some kind of survey or measurement of the other tenants. If not, you could look at similar spaces elsewhere, or perhaps talk with the future tenants. You simply have to come up with a defensible proces that's not an extreme amount of effort.

I would think that a documented company policy that Y memberships will be provided for any bicycle commuters would be sufficient (noting that the Y meets the 200-yard requirement), although the GBCI reviewer has the final word of course.

Or, in an office of eight people, one membership meets the requirement—so maybe just spring for one membership?

Thanks for the follow-up. Where does it specify that for an 8 person office one membership will meet the requirement? I have not found that language anywhere.

I'm simply going by the percentage calc from the credit language—see above. Make sense?

As per my understanding, the percentage calc pertains to the quantity of showers (# of users x 0.005) needed for the FTEs. The access to that # of showers should be for everyone.
So for the Y, we obviously have enough showers, but we would need for everyone to have access, or at least for those who will actually commute by bicycle.
Am I incorrect? - Thanks!

Doh.... I wasn't thinking about it in those terms. You're right.

The most bullet-proof way to meet the credit intent, then, is to get a membership for the whole staff. Maybe the Y has a group rate and this isn't so expensive, plus the staff might appreciate the perk. Access to the gym, etc.

If that is cost-prohibitive, then I would do as you suggest—survey the staff and see who is a bicycle commuter, or might be. I would be conservative, i.e. over-estimate the number. To best meet the intent of the credit, you should probably provide memberships for all of those people, plus documenting a policy whereby anyone else who wants access would get a membership. Again I would check on group rates here.

Given your size, I would also just do a show of hands or a survey and see if people would actually use it. Not all credits really make sense for all projects.

How does that sound?

Thanks Tristan. Exactly what I wanted to confirm.

I think the best route is to do what you suggest with people who will commute + optional future opt-in for anyone else who wishes to participate.

According to the official credit language, this credit is strictly about tenant occupants, not building occupants.

Sounds like you might already qualify, but just check that the facilities are within 200 yards of the main building entrance.

I've just done some investigative work and on page 96 of the LEED Canada CI v1.0, it states that "If the required bike rack capacity cannot be reserved for the specific tenant space, the quantity then must be based on the entire building population."
I assume a sign would be ok??
Thanks for the quick feedback, it is much appreciated!

Yes, exactly – a sign would be appropriate to designate that bike racks in a common space are reserved for a particular tenant space. If you can do that, you shouldn't need to worry about the capacity relative to the whole building.

On the other hand, if the other spaces in the building are also going for LEED-CI, you can't all claim the same space -- so you would need to see if there is enough capacity based on the entire building.

You're welcome!

Peter, if this is a LEED-CI project, and only the radiology suite is in your scope, then you should be able to simply designate the appropriate number of existing spaces for the radiology suite, rather than adding new spaces.

I think that's all that LEED would require. This would probably be a good opportunity, though, to check how much demand there is for existing bicycle racks, and if they seem to be full much of the time, add some capacity for the radiology suite, so that designating those spots doesn't make things harder for other bicyclists.

Yes, you can use the existing bike parking as long as it's within the required 200 yards from the building entry. However, the hospital be aware that if they have future LEED projects on site, they cannot take credit for the same bike parking spaces that you have for this LEED project -- no double dipping. The same applies for showers. Keep in mind that all FTEs who work in the space would need to have access to a shower somewhere in the facility, not just doctors.

When you calculate the number of FTEs for this radiology suite, I don't think you'd have to account for transient visitors (aka patients) because they won't be taking bikes to the facility.

Sherry, great comment, but I think it's important to clarify.

The showering facility calc only includes FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories.'s, such as staff, so transients like patients aren't counted there, anyway.

The bike rack count would need to account for transient visitors such as patients, and I wouldn't feel comfortable assuming that they can be excluded just because it's a radiology suite, without doing a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide through GBCI. There is some precedent for this, but you may have to demonstrate why it can be reasonably assumed that those visitors will not have a bike, and how they will be accommodated if they do.