EBOM 2009 SSc4: Alternative Commuting Transportation

It is probably a whole lot easier to create a survey online and give the link to tenants, than to pass out paper ones. You did not mention the type of building tenants, is it 1000 separate individuals? Or are there point people who could help you distribute the survey, to say, the 10 companies in the building (each with 100 employees)?

Thanks for the response.

I was under the impression that i can't really do an online survey (with occupant emails) because i need to keep the results anonymous. Is there a way of doing so online anonymously? Also, i'm doubtful that i can get email addresses for most of the workers.

The building has about 50 tenants, each with about 20-25 workers

You can still distribute an online survey via email, as long as you don't collect any information that can connect a response to a specific individual. Many online survey tools give you the option to select the information that will be returned to you in a final report. If you're having trouble collecting email addresses, send the link to your online survey to your tenant rep for each of the 50 tenants in your building, explain to them what you're trying to do, and ask them to forward the survey to each of their co-workers. They will not be responsible for collecting the survey data, so it is minimal effort on their part, but you may need to explain a little bit about the LEED process and the importance of gathering this information.

For tips on online surveys and other methods, including in-person lobby surveys, you may also want to take a look at the tip sheet at http://www.leeduser.com/strategy/doing-alternative-commuting-transportat....

Tzvi,

I did not mean that the survey would be in the email, I meant the survey would be online and you would send a link in the email. Sorry for the confusion. Jason sums up the rest of the process nicely.

Also, there are many (free) online survey creation websites. A quick google search returned survey monkey and kwik surveys.

Good Luck!

Tyler,

I am getting the same error, LEEDuser will investigate.

I had a similar issue about a year ago and I think it is a problem with an Excel default setting rather than with the USGBC calculator. I'm running Windows 7 now, so I'm not exactly sure of the specific steps you should take on your operating system, but essentially you need to go to the Options section in Excel and under "Formulas", make sure that "Workbook Calculation" is set to "Automatic". Hopefully this helps.

Hi Tyler,

Have you tried entering values in the subsequent cells? When I work though the spreadsheet I’m able to trigger that error message, but it’s because an acceptable value needs to be entered in cell C15 for the “total number of regular building occupants who received the survey”. This value needs to match the output in the grey cell C14, which differs based on whether Approach 1 or 2 is selected.

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the suggestion. I confirmed that my Workbook Calculation is set to Automatic and I still receive the error message. Also, I tried the other settings (Auto Except for Data Tables and Manual) and they did not resolve the error message either. I will look at some excel forums to see if I can find a solution.

Thanks.

Hi Trista,

Thanks for the response. I have tried entering values in the subsequent cells. Cell C15 is actually where I am getting the error message. I have tried entering values that are equivalent, lower, and higher than the minimum required values of C14 and C12, but I always get the same error message ("The number of 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. occupants who received the survey is greater than the total number of FTE occupants in the building").

Thanks for looking into this and for the help.

That's very curious. Have you tried downloading a fresh file? When I was testing the spreadsheet I noticed that sometimes I'd update a cell to an acceptable value, but the formula wouldn't reset correctly and the error message would stick around. Using a brand-new file that didn’t have any errors triggered already then fixed the issue. I apologize if you’ve already tried this workaround as well.

I have also had problems with spreadsheet -- downloading a new worksheet and changing settings in excel didn't seem to help.
But for a temporary work around, I found that if I entered the values for the cells that were generating the errors messages into a separate worksheet and the cut and pasted the numbers into the appropriate cells it seems to work and I was able to complete the rest of the spreadsheet.

Thanks Peggy. Your suggested 'temporary work around' worked! Thanks to everyone for your help on this issue. Much appreciated.

Hi everbody,

just get the calculator from the credit ressources at LEEDonline adressing SSc4. It's the same but without an error.

Wagner, the idea behind the timing is that you are asking occupants about their commuting practices over five days. You can get this information by surveying them every day for five days, or once at the end of five days.

The SCAQMD requirement for traceability does not extend to EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems., Dominick. As I understand it, SCAQMD maintains that requirement to preserve the ability to verify the validity of a survey and responses - EBOM uses somewhat different methods to help GBCI feel confident that the survey is legitimate. So you can combine your transportation and occupant comfort surveys and maintain anonymity as per comfort survey requirements.
Hope that helps,
Dan

Wendy - My sense is that this is a situation where a perfect survey and a 'good enough' survey might differ. As you've noted, defining the % of the trip undertaken in each form of transportation and weighting each occupant accordingly (someone who drives 25% of the way then rides the bus 75% of the way would count as a .75 RCCT) would be the most accurate method. However, a survey detailed and thorough enough to glean that information might also be lengthy enough so as to depress your response rate significantly. On the other hand, I have seen surveys that count individuals who use public transport for any portion of their commute as alternative transport users, which seems misleading as well. I think your proposal - if the majority of an occupants commute (by mileage) is via alternative means, count them as an alt transport user - is probably the most sensible balance between the two.

Hope that helps,

Dan

Boy, thats a tough one Marcus - sorting out the potential drivers vs. non-drivers makes some sense, I agree. Even that sort isn't entirely clean because an argument could be made for excluding students entirely or for counting all students (I am imagining that many students are dropped off at school rather than ride the bus, which is a significant commute impact). I would almost be tempted to survey all three major populations (staff, 16+ students, under 16 students) and let GBCI tell you what the right mix is. But I think in the absence of specific guidance on how to treat this group, GBCI has to give some flexibility to applicants to use their best judgement. Sorry I don't have more definitive thoughts.

Dan

I can't formally confirm any of the above, but I certainly think it is a lock for SSc4. The recert guidance simply carries over the idea of a 2-year maximum performance period to recertification - that logic would seem to extend to most of the credits you've listed (although I'm not sure its true for WEp1 or EQc2.3.)

Dan

Thanks for your help.

Mauro

Stephen, can you say more about the methodology? It seems like it might work as one data point, but how does it tell you who carpooled, who walked, who biked, who took transit, and if they drove what kind of car?

It doesn't tell who carpooled so each car is assumed to have one occupant. All others who arrived at work would have walked, biked, or used mass transit. There is no real on-street parking and to park in another garage (if possible) would be costly.

Stephen, I think a reviewer would be troubled by the assumption that the cost of parking would be so prohibitive as to ensure that folks aren't doing it. Here in the BayA bay is a component of a standard, rectilinear building design. It is the open area defined by a building element such as columns or a window. Typically, there are multiple identical bays in succession. Area, parking in downtown SF is spectacularly, obscenely expensive and yet those garages seem to be plenty busy every day. The survey can be a hassle, but I think its your safest bet for getting the credit approved smoothly. I also imagine that if your survey result is very closely aligned with your garage swipe data, you'll have a stronger case to make for using that method in future re-certifications.

Hope that helps,

Dan

Dan,
If parking in that garage is free for a tenant with a parking card, why would they pay $20/day to park somewhere else?
The survey only touches a portion of 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.. This method gives a count for all the FTE's as they must swipe their card to get in the garage. Since it doubles as a security card for bldg access afterhours, the swipe is a unique identifier for each FTE.

Hello Andrea,

That's really a tough one! I suppose a person who carpooled in a LEFE vehicle should respond only that he used the LEFE vehicle, and not that he carpooled. Think about it: on each day in which they carpooled together, for those 2 people, zero conventional vehicles were used. Therefore, 4 conventional trips were avoided on that day, right? Equivalent to both declaring that they used low-emitting vehiclesLow-emitting vehicles are classified as zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by the California Air Resources Board..

But I'm not quite sure exactly what the SCAQMD methodology says about this one, though, so I'd wait for some more insights to be sure.

My thought was that much like some of the MR credits, two sustainable aspects are counted for each of their merits. If I have food that is both organic and local, I get credit for both. In the transportation credit, if I have carpooling and a fuel-efficient vehicle, it should count twice. Any thoughts?

Boy Andrea, you are my nominee for 'Question of the Year' at the LEEDUser awards. I've been turning this one over in my head and I'm really not sure what the right answer is. This is a really rare situation, and its hard for me to imagine that the outcome will drastically affect your numbers, but in a small building, it very well could. I think your argument about the organic and local analogy is a valid one; at the same time, I'm not sure its sensible to conceive that one persons exceptionally green commute could somehow compensate for someone else's conventional commute (effectively the case if your hybrid-poolers travel was counted as two non-CSOV commutes). I think ultimately, this is a call the GBCI will have to make - I would run your calculations both ways and submit both tables and a narrative that explains your conundrum and why the outcome matters. I suspect that ultimately GBCI will agree with your logic and the quasi-precedent set by MR, but its a toss-up. Let us know what happens!

Dan

Here's what the review team said.... Note that trips to the building in low emitting and fuel efficient vehicles can be accounted entirely as alternative
commutes, and the number of carpool passengers in the vehicle does not need to be counted.

Thoughts?

John - As far as I know, GBCI hasn't 'pre-approved' any local or regional transportation programs as automatically compliant with Option 2. That being said, from what (little) I know of SmartCommute, it does look like the kind of program that Option 2 had in mind when it was written. It would be wise for you to submit information as to how SmartCommute and SCAQMD compare in terms of data collection methodology to help the reviewer feel confident in the integrity of the performance data collected, but I think that assuming there are no drastic differences, you can be pretty optimistic that the program will work. Hope that helps,

Dan

EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. doesn't do a great job of establishing the parameters for this, and there remains some uncertainty about how local/regional programs will be seen by reviewers, but fundamentally I think you are seeking to establish that the program methodology for data collection is reasonably equivalent to SCAQMD. That is, explain who you are reporting to and most importantly the details of how the data is collected and analyzed. Provide details as to how issues like sample size and survey bias are addressed, and illustrate the computations in such a way as to confirm that things like carpoolers are handled in a sensible fashion. My sense is that reviewers are generally deferential to local program methodologies, but with a caveat that a highly questionable survey, process, or calculation is not going to fly. Hope that helps,
Dan

Stations in the lobbies are a great way to get responses - I have found that having interviewers asking questions is a way to expedite the information collection process and keep folks from having to take a full 'time-out' from hustling to get to their desks. Requires more people-power, but it can really increase response rates. To your questions:
1. The survey methodology assumes that people use the same means to get to/from work on a given day. In rare cases that may not be the case (cyclists taking the bus or a cab home on a rainy evening) but it's an assumption you can safely make.
2. Yes - given your situation, this seems perfectly sound.
3. Great question and EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. doesn't specify a methodology here. In this instance, asking for mileages for each leg of the trip would be great (and one could then assign fractions of the commute to alternative and conventional means, much as is done with carpooling), or you could simplify the endeavor by counting multi-modal commuters as conventional. I think it depends how often you see this scenario arising, how you anticipate it will affect your performance numbers, and how it will affect response rate. Tough question - no easy answer there.

Hope that helps,

Dan

Dan - To follow up on gwenedd's question, if we choose to survey return or evening modes of transportation can we utilize that information?

Thanks!

Wendy

I don't see a reason why not Wendy - It's hard for me to imagine a situation where an alt transport user in the morning becomes a CSOV user in the evening or vice versa. There could be some modal changes within the alt transport group (I rode my bike to work but took the bus home because it was raining) but those changes are marginal enough so as to be largely inconsequential.

Dan

Interesting question! I think the approach you are contemplating is probably the best route. Although you are correct in noting that the findings may slightly off the mark, I would think that most manufacturers would have publicly available (and reasonably reliable) information on fuel economy and curb weight, if not tailpipe emissions. My suggestion from a LEED standpoint would be to carefully quantify the portion of your overall transportation performance that is associated with vehicles of uncertain documentation so that, if push comes to shove, you can back those out of the figures for compliant commutes. That being said, it has been my experience that the USGBC/GBCI recognizes the inherent limitations of many of the tools it employs from the perspective of projects outside the US, and is quite receptive to those projects sincere and thoughtful efforts to achieve the best documentation standards they can achieve.

Hope that helps,

Dan

I'm not sold on it Dawn. I think you'd probably get a decent number, but any time a blanket assumption is made, you're taking a big risk. I can immediately imagine a few situations probable in your instance that would undermine this approach - 1. occupants arriving by taxi or even limo (which can be a chunk in downtown areas depending on your occupancy), 2. occupants dropped off by a carpool (although that is alternative, it isnt the same as riding a bike from a mathematical standpoint), or 3. occupants who are parking in a nearby parking garage and walking from there to your building. I think #3 is obviously the most problematic of those mentioned, but that list isn't by any means conclusive. I don't want to give the impression that this approach is definitely off-limits, but it sounds risky to me.

Hope that helps

Dan

That is about right - the narrative should articulate the survey process, particularly the means (hard copy, interview, online), timing, anything you've done to deal with seasonality, response rates, etc... And its always good to discuss the insights you've gleaned as well. Basically, tell the story of the survey and show that you've carefully adhered to EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. guidance, even if it feels like you're just repeating what is in the Ref Guide sometimes. It helps the reviewer connect the dots between things that might otherwise be unclear.

Hope that helps,

Dan

Nana, I think you've got a fine little Credit Interpretation Request on your hands. I think there's a reasonable argument for either including or excluding your guests (the latter seems clearly to be an option, but I'm not certain the former is), and there are a variety of ways one might wrestle with people who live AND work in the same place. For example, one might argue that the innkeeper (and the owners, at least during the 60% of the year they live on-site), doesn't have a commute at all, which is not necessarily the same as using alternative transportation to commute!

It's a real curveball - the 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 process is perfect for this.

Dan

They are indeed 'regular occupants'. This becomes a bit simpler if you think about each employee in terms of commute trips. If I understand the situation, you have a Facility Manager working 5 days/week (therefore making 10 commute trips). You also have 3 employees who each work two days - 3 employees x 2 days x 2 commute trips per working day = an additional 12 trips. So your building has a baseline of 22 conventional commute trips per week from which you will determine your 'reduction'. Hope that helps.

Dan

Given that the different entrances serve people who are using different modes of transport, it seems important to include them both in the survey somehow. I think either of the approaches you outlined seem sound. My thought is that people might be less likely to toss the survey once they are in the building, rather than still in their cars. It's always a chore to gather everything from one's car to come inside.

Just two quick notes on this
- You've correctly noted the key challenge with the 'elevator survey' approach; you have to be able to survey at all points of entry to the building to ensure you are getting commuters coming via various means. For this building, I think your idea of stationing surveyors at each level above the lobby as folks exit the elevators is a great one - it may require more folks than the alternative, but it solves the problem nicely. Unfortunately, rather than the convenient window where people are waiting for the elevator, you'll have to slow folks down on their way to their destinations - that could lead to more non-respondents. Also, take care to ensure that you balance the surveys per floor in representative fashion.
- Also to Tristan's comment - I want to just clarify that the elevator survey is rarely conducted with a form or hard copy survey; it is almost always verbal to minimize non-respondence.

I would suggest a different model for conducting the survey than the one you are proposing. Your question suggests that your team plans to interview building occupants at the end of each day in a 5 day period. While that is certainly a marvelous approach to getting highly reliable data, it is more than EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. requires. Most SSc4 surveys are conducted on a SINGLE day, asking respondents to describe their commuting behavior over the preceding 5 day period. In applying that model to some of your questions:

2) If there is a compelling reason for to include a weekend, it is probably fine but the intent here is to survey folks in a way that is most likely to get accurate information. The longer in the past a given day's commute was, the less likely that information is to be accurate.

3) Assuming you could survey during a set of weeks very close together, and that you have clearly discrete building subpopulations to survey (to ensure no respondents are being surveyed twice), this is also technically probably ok. Again, a reviewer would want to understand why this deviation from the norm was important, but if your reason is convincing, I think it would be OK.

4) Yes - a list of employees at some point in the survey development process will be fine. Your list should include enough surplus respondents to that you have replacements for employees who are absent or otherwise unable to respond.

5) Absent employees should not be included in the survey sample if they are absent throughout the 5-day survey period - they are simply not commuters that week. If you need to include an employee who is absent one day of the five, you'd have to count that person as a 4/5th employee, as you can't count their absentee day as either a conventional or alternative commute - therefore you have to discount the employee themself. That one's thorny!

And finally, to Question 1 - this really comes down to your LEED project boundary. If you are talking about a single LEED project, then the sample size can be from both towers; if these are separate LEED projects, then each one needs to hit the threshold as individual projects.

Hope that helps

Dan

Scott, as I understand it, you've got students coming to/from the building to attend classes during the day - From an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. perspective, these are effectively the same as folks commuting to and from work and should therefore be included. Rather than asking how students reached 'the building' that day, you may want to ask how they reached 'campus', as that is more likely to capture their relevant transportation use (and reduce multiple counts from students who leave the building and return during the school day), but otherwise, its not dissimilar to a conventional commercial office building in most regards. Hope that helps.

That's a tough one Lisa. If this were my client, I think I would want to learn as much as I could about the subgroup of folks that use the shuttle bus as the last link in their commute. The two things that would most interest me are a) How they get to the main campus and b) For occupants arriving at the main campus by conventional means, what distance is the trip from home to the main campus. Occupants arriving at the main campus by alternative means would be considered zero trips (unless its a carpool of course). But for occupants arriving at the main campus by conventional means, it would be really helpful to have some sense as to the portion of their daily commute that the shuttle represents. If I'm commuting 30 miles and only the last 5 is by shuttle, that's very different than the inverse, or even a 15/15 mile split. I think I would try to get a handle on those average distances, then assign a trip reduction accordingly. Does that help at all?

Yes, I think we are on the same track. The main campus and this satellite location are about 18 miles apart. I worded the question to require that they list the *longest* part of their commute if it was mixed. So, if they drove 5 miles to campus, parked and then took the shuttle the 18 miles they can claim the shuttle. Just to be sure, I'll go back and look at the zip codes of the shuttle riders to see the possible distance from home to the main campus. And FYI, I contacted ACEEE about when they'll be adding the 2011 cars to "the list," and they said not before February.

And the answer is that all but one of them live on or around the main campus! So, as far as I am concerned, that constitues zero trips! The other person's first leg of the trip is shorter than the second.

Is there a specific reason you think you might NOT be eligible for the points? Trying to understand your question... thanks!

My project building has 593 regular occupants. The survey was conducted over 5 consecutive workdays (i.e. Monday through Friday). Each surveyed employee signed the survey sheet and marked the transportation mode used to travel to the building in all shifts on each of those 5 days. Response rate is 100% of the regular building occupants & there are no absentees.
Almost 518 commute using the pooling facility the number of weekly commute trips would be 5,180 per week (518 occupants x 2 trips per day x 5 days per week). Occupants use single-occupant vehicles to travel to work make 750 trips to and from the building each week (75 occupants x 2 trips per day x 5 days per week). We have calculated the RCCT is 87%. In this instance the AVR is 7.9
Is this correct?

The RCCT seems right and you're meeting the requirement to earn the maximum number of points under the credit.