CS 2009 SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation—Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles

LEED rounds up because the requirement is for a minimum of 5% and they encourage project teams to do more than that.

Thanks. Would it not be wise to indicate so in the calculations of the guidelines? Unless I've erred, I don't see where the guidelines or calculations clearly indicate to round up. Thanks again.

Landry, it would make sense for USGBC to indicate this, but they haven't done so. It's a tip we pass around on forums like this one.

Sarah, are you asking whether the refueling station can help you earn SSc4.3 on the renovation project?

It sounds like they are fundamentally different projects—what do they have in common, other than your firm's involvement? As such, I don't see them being combined.

If there is a way you could combine them, I think you'd have to wait on the renovation LEED submission for the refueling station to be substantially complete.

Julie, your approach makes sense to me, although I have heard of trouble on other credits where combining options was not explicitly allowed. Have you gotten approval of this yet?

Hi Julie, I'm am also not aware of precedent for this particular approach. If you haven't already done so, you might file a LEED Interpretation request to confirm whether or not this approach will be accepted. The approach you described above seems reasonable to me, but you might feel more confident having an official verdict from GBCI.

The automatic parking systems we've used don't provide any "preferred" location - since the cars get moved around they don't give the driver of those two preferred spaces a shorter walk or quicker access. If that's true for your system, you could use the discounted parking part of Option 1. There needs to be some real benefit for the drivers of the fuel-efficient vehiclesFuel-efficient vehicles have achieved a minimum green score of 40 according to the annual vehicle-rating guide of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. - usually more convenient access or lower cost.

These are two good questions. To address the first, the intent of this credit is to encourage the use of low-emitting vehiclesLow-emitting vehicles are classified as zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by the California Air Resources Board. by all employees and visitors of the building. Without knowing any details about the SMART car program, it sounds like the use of these spaces might be limited to a certain group of users or a certain vehicle type. In general, these spaces must be made available to any drivers of qualified low-emitting vehicles in order to meet the credit intent.

To answer the second question, the credit requirements use the word "vehicles" instead of "cars," therefore one might interpret this to include motorbikes. Since motorbike parking takes up space in the parking lot that could otherwise be used for cars, the conservative approach would suggest that they should be included in the total parking count. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any precedent on this.

It depends - if you are providing preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. by offering a discount on parking fees than it should be okay, but if not, then the spaces have to be the closest spaces to the main building entrance for these people. (The only spaces that can be closer to the entrance are ones reserved for disabled users.)

David, the project will implement preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. spaces for low-eLow-E or Low-Emissivity Coating: Very thin metallic coating on glass or plastic window glazing that reduces heat loss and heat gain through the window; the coating emits less radiant energy (heat radiation), which makes it, in effect, reflective to that heat. In that way it boosts a window's R-value and reduces its U-factor. and fuel efficient vehicles, and, according to the MPR supplemental guidance page 14, "facilities (including parking) outside the leed project boundary used for compliance with specific credits: facilities that are not within the leed project boundary but are used to demostrate compliance with a credit or prerequisite, as allowed per the rating system and reference guide, need not be considered for other prerequisite, credit, or mpr compliance. However those facilities cannot be used to show compliance for other leed projects"

In this case, I am assuming that providing the preferred parking for low-e and fuel efficient vehicles (will obviously have to be close to a building entryway) but outside the LEED boundary, will be sufficient to comply with the credit's requirements.

I understand your situation a bit better now - if all the parking is outside the LEED boundary, but the preferred stalls are still closest to the entry, I think you would be fine.

Not sure if I understand your question - the credit requirements are only looking at "capacity" as the number of parking spaces, and providing 3% of that number of spaces as ones reserved for fueling or charging alternative fuel vehicles. We don't need to provide info about the rate or capacity of power being provided - except that actual charging equipment does need to be installed (not just 120 V outlets) Does that answer your question?

In LEED v3 the reference guide sais "prepare information about the number of fueling stations provided, the alternative fuel station type, manufacturer, model number, and the fueling capacity per station" (documentation guidance).
In LEED CS v2.0 it sais even more: "confirm the fuel type, number of stations, and fueling capacity for each station for an 8-hour period".
So I guess we need to specify the power of charging equipment. As far as I am concerned, different electric vehicles need different plugs and voltage...
Any idea how detailed the specification needs to be?
Thanks!

Hi, Alicja!

If you install 240 volt charging stations, then the assumption is that you are offering what is considered a "rapid charge," and that an electric car could fully charge in at least 8 hours. As far as documentation goes, you would need to show the number and location of the refueling/recharging stations, as well as the specifications for the type of station being provided (with the intent of proving that you are providing at least 240 volt outlets). Hope that helps!

Preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. refers to desirable parking spaces near the building entrance. If those are located in the aboveground lot, then I would say that the garage does not need to (perhaps even should not) contain preferred parking.

I tend to agree - the MAIN building entrances are better served with the preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. as opposed to a limited access garage at the bottom of the structure. I will keep you posted! Thank you!

Tristan- As promised I wanted to keep you posted of this challenge.

We ended up submitted 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 proposing the preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. for the garage should be calculated as a percentage of parking. For example, for the CS project 5% of total parking is required to be reserved for LEFE vehicles. In the CIR, we proposed 5% of garage and 5% of surface lot to be reserved for these vehicles. This strategy was approved :)

I can't find a requirement for signage on a post or on the building so striping seems ok. Is that correct?

We submitted this credit for review about 6 months ago and have been asked to submit photos of the signs for the final review. I would definitely do the signs, not just the striping.

Just a note, we have a achieved this credit with striped spaces only (no sign) for a number of Core & Shell (and NC) projects. Offhand, I would say we've submitted this at least 10 times and been approved.

Chris,
The issues is parking...(not other types of uses where a car is in a space). Loading is a different activity, and is not parking. The LE/LF vehicles should be the most favored positions after accessible parking, and excluding uses such as drop off, loading and other non-parking activities.

Also, we have been successful in dividing LE/LF parking between customer doors and empolyee entrances, so you could divide them into two groups based on the ratio of customer (or visitor) to emplyee parking.