Matt, LEED does not have a specific standard to answer this question. I'd say a roof alone is fine, as long as it does a reasonable job at keeping out blowing rain.

I have no specific experience with the credit around a day care center (or schools for that matter). However, I would question the exclusion of parents from the calcs -- is there a reason that no parents could drop off their children by bicycle?

Komal,

Did you ever get an answer for this? I'm working on a day care project now and we are wondering if the parents who drop off the kids need to be included as visitors. Thanks!

This credit does not distinguish between male and female fixtures. So, unisex showers are fine.

Haven't heard of any more precise language than what you've found, so have the impression that "entrance to entrance" is the appropriate way to measure it.
This might be worth emailing as a question to GBCI technical customer service - see the discusion at
http://www.leeduser.com/blogs/gbci-invites-direct-inquiries-do-your-home...

Since the reference guide states that in a building with multiple shifts you should use only the highest-volume shift in the calculation I would use just only the highest-volume shift (600) BUT you should also consider shift overlap (page 53). Therefore I would use 600 + 300 = 900 occupants for calculating bicycle racks and showering facilities.
Any other ideas?

It seems like you could reasonably justify only providing racks for 600 people (or 900 if there is shift overlap). Just make sure to clearly state your case when you submit the credit. And let us know the outcome!

Seems to me that the credit requirements simply weren't really thinking about the possibility of 24-hour occupancy. Given that, they aren't logical. I'd contact GBCI to see if they will give you a different route based on peak occupancy, including shift overlaps.

Thanks everyone, I guess it seems logical to everyone just to use the peak number (including shift overlap).
I will let you know the result of the submission.

Have you taken a look at the Interpretations database or found anything from the manufacturing discussion group? LEED HC has a different calculation for shift overlap for this credit. Essentially you add the two largest shift FTEs together and multiply by 40%. That number is then used to calculate the required number of bike spaces and showers. (So your case = 600+300=900*.4=360.) Caveat is that in HC, this credit only applies to staff and hospital have very large staff populations. You don't say what type of project you have.

My point is that there may be some room for a more thoughtful look at peak shift occupancy rates and that HC and manufacturing may have some guidance for your project.

The 60 visitors sounds more accurate than the 30 visitors since that averages out to occuring every other week, which is pretty often. It might be argued that the 100 visitor count is "regularly occuring" since it can be expected twice a year, but it doesn't seem very reasonable to call that "regular."

Yes, the bike shower and storage areas can be housed in an existing building outside of the LEED boundary if they are within the 200 yard distance.

The exclusion and example on the top of page 25 of the MPR Supplemental Guidance Revision #2 speaks to this situation. In most cases, you would count the showers in the adjacent building as meeting the “access” requirement of SSc4.2 and exclude the water, energy, and materials from your LEED project calculations. The example says those showers “may not be included in the calculations for WEp1…” so it sounds like that’s the primary intent.

Since your project is *not* separated by ownership, and you *might* have the ability to include the shower work in the contract for the LEED project, this MPR language suggests it might be possible to include those off-site showers in the energy and water calculation in some cases, but the language is not completely clear.

You could certainly write 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 for guidance on whether they should be included, and that might be the only way to know for sure. Since project teams are given a fair amount of room to define the LEED boundary and scope of systems included, you could probably make a case for either approach in a detailed narrative. My hunch is including the showers might be more trouble than it is worth, especially in the energy model, since it sounds as though you have a central district system for heating & cooling water, but you mentioned your plumbing systems are separate. Hope that’s clear enough to be helpful – post back if you still have any questions.

Hi Greg,
You can meet the requirement with the shower count as a whole as long as they are all within the necessary proximity (same building obviously would work), and your FTEs have access to all the showers. The only hiccup I could forsee is if you have limited access to the gym showers (because you need membership or something).

LEED does not prescribe the type of bicycle rack that should be used or the spacing between them. LEED only prescribes that bicycle storage/racks be secure and within 200 yards of the building entrance.

In my mind, neither wheel bender or crowd control bicycle racks can be defined as secure. These types of racks only allow a user to secure their wheel to the rack, which makes it very easy for someone to steal the bike. I would also highly discourage the use of "wave" racks. As for the "20 openings" in the crowd control style rack - no way/no how would you be able to fit 20 bikes in a 10 ft space and you would not be able to count each opening as a rack. The manufacturer usually states how many bikes will fit on a certain rack. Generally, depending on the type of rack you use, they can be spaced 2' O.C. and accommodate 2 bikes each (using a U rack).

David Baker has a great info page about bike parking if you want to learn more (http://www.dbarchitect.com/words/writings/72/HOW%20TO%3A%20Bicycle%20Par...).

As someone who commutes by bike daily, I would never lock my bike to either type of rack. Although LEED isn't specific regarding the type of rack you can use, I think you will want to decide whether your approach would meet the intent of the credit, which is to encourage alternative transportation (bikes) and reduce the impacts from auto use. Without providing safe, secure and convenient bike storage, I doubt you would really encourage people to arrive by bike. You might meet the "requirements," but you wouldn't really meet the intent.

I would assume that you, Mr. Baker and I see eye-to-eye on bike parking.

Since LEED doesn't provide guidelines for this, if the project owner were to ask, "what's the cheapest way we can provide 40 bicycle spaces and still meet the requirements?" we're going to end up with this:
http://www.dixieschooldistrict.org/photogallery/mc%20bike%20rack1.JPG

I was hoping for an amendment or 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 that regulates what is and is not an acceptable method of bicycle parking.

Rick,
I'm not sure I'd want to hold my breath waiting for 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 or addendum on that level of detail! As much as it might help you answer the clients question easily, the downside of that level of detail would be such a prescriptive and complex rating system that would be even harder to use. I don't know of any ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services standard for bike racks, so we'll have to use our professional judgement of how many bikes can reasonably fit on a rack.

If your project is sharing bike racks and showers with other buildings, you'll need to show that you can meet the 5% of peak occupants and 0.5% 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. staff for all those buildings combined. Yes, a narrative with the alternative compliance path option would be a good way to do this, since you don't want to change your FTE numbers in the PI forms.

When we calculate those FTE and peak users numbers we have to assume a 50/50 split between men and women. We can change that ratio only in special circumstances (such as a single-sex residential dorm) but they won't usually let us change that just because there has historically been more of one gender using the facility.

So, for an FTE of 1000 with one showering/ changing facility for each gender, assume 500 men, 500 women.
500 x 0.005 = 2.5, round it up to 3, and we'd need 3 showers for men and 3 for women.

Another option might be to have some or all of the showers each be a private unisex room, similar to a single handicapped restroom. If those are separate from other bathroms, you'd want to make them clearly marked and easy to find.

1000 FTE x 0.005 = 5, so 5 private shower & changing rooms that can used by either men or women at any time. Does that make sense?

Regarding the Gender Ratio, the WEp1 Additional Guidance document addresses it somewhat (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6493).

Per the document, "Modifications to the 50:50 ratio must be shown to apply for the life of the building."
"Acceptable special circumstances include:
"1. Projects specifically designed for an alternative gender ratio. Examples of this could be a single gender educational facility or any project that can show that flush and flow fixtures have been distributed to account for the modified ratio. Project teams must provide documentation of the code-required plumbing fixture counts per gender, so the review team can verify that the flush-fixture ratio installed in the project supports the alternative gender ratio claimed.
"2. Projects expected to have alternative gender usage rates for the life of the building. An example of this could be a military project. For such projects current staffing level or human resource data, alone, is not sufficient to justify a departure from the 50:50 ratio. Supporting documentation must include trend data forecasting forward that shows the unequal gender ratio will likely exist for the life of the building."

We came across this situation for a military building, where the owner was claiming similar ratios to what youv'e got in your factory. But because of architectural layout of the building, they ended up having almost as many facilities for women as they had for men (per code), so we could not argue much for Circumstance #1. Circumstance #2 might have been an option, but we felt like it would take too long to track down that form of information (trend forecasting, etc.). In the end we simply went back to 50/50 ratio for our LEED application because we had enough showers to cover that many women as well.

If yours is a factory plant that already has showers that do not meet the amount current code would require for an equal 50/50 gender ratio, then you may be able to make the case for Circumstance #1.

Hi Marcio,
Boy, that's a tough one. Do you have shower capacity for all 4 buildings worth of peak users in P10? If so, you may have a chance, but I haven't seen any exceptions on the distance parameter so far even on campus projects. I think you'd need 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 for this one, particularly if you are considering installing the showers only for this credit.

I think the important distinction you need to make with USGBC is the differnce between this single point of entry to the complex and a typical, porous campus, where people can be arriving at a building from many directions. In the latter case, remote bike parking could mean a cyclist is forced to travel quite some distance beyond their actual destination, plus the remote bike parking location may not be readily apparent from the building entry/ies. Both of these would act as discouragements to cycling. In your case, the forced single point of entry to the complex is a very different condition. If all users must enter via that building, it becomes, in effect, the only arrival point for the individual project building(s). Thus there is no inconvenience put on cyclists compared to other modes of travel. (I imagine you will have to carefully argue your case, via 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 or otherwise.)

Of course, as Michelle notes, you'll also need to be able to demonstrate adequate capacity (bike parking; changing rooms/showers) for the entire complex since you're claiming a common bike-support facility.

Good luck!

Michelle, Michael, thanks for both of your responses.

Yes, we are providing bike storage and changing room for all the buildings on campus - actually, our number is even a little over the credit requirement. So in what concerns to that we should be fine.

No, it is not a porous campus, there's no way someone can get into through other entrance. There are not even roads sorrounding the entire site because of its geographical location - we are upon a plateau, our neighbor is another industrial plant. Both cars and bicycle storage are located in the same parking zone, bicycles are even closer to the P10 entrance than cars. Hopefuly this rises our chances, yeah?!

Hi Marcio -

Yes, if EVERYONE going to the facility must proceed to the "entrance building" first, then you can place all of your bike racks within 200 yards of that building entrance and have it count to all buildings on campus. See LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #5847.

We have successfully used this approach for a few projects, for both SSc4.1 and SSc4.2.

However, if you take this approach, per the Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Projects, you will have to provide enough racks/showers for everyone at the facility to meet the credit (not just the LEED project).

One possible alternative - if that is not an option and you can only provide enough racks/showers for your project - is to provide clear, specific signage stating that the bike racks and showers are for the use of employees/visitors at the LEED project building only (I've seen GBCI comments asking for this requirement in shared parking/bike facilities). That said, this signage is not at all ideal and I would recommend against using that approach. I would also personally question how much longer the GBCI would accept it.

The alley side would meet the requirements if it's accessible and provides real security for the bikes. If it's so dark and scary that no biker would leave their bike locked there, it might meet the "letter of the law" but miss the intent.

Yes, a single unisex shower room is fine.

Interesting question.
One the one hand, if you count each patrol officer as a full 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., that implies they are in the building all day and so would increase your water use numbers in WEp1 and WEc3.

On the other hand, if you count each patrol officer as a visitor, then they are not included in the number of people being enticed into riding a bike with the presence of showers... and it doesn't reflect their car being parked all day.

One solution might be to count each patrol officer as a full FTE, but create a separate fixture group for them in the WE credits with fewer toilet visits per day. Or, you could define each patrol officer as a part-time FTE in PI Form 3, with a limited number of hours in the building, but this might under-represent them for shower and parking stall counts.

If you do count each patrol officer as a full FTE, make sure your energy model, water calcs, daylight and views calcs, and controllability of systems calcs don't end up with a higher occupant number than is appropriate. Include a narrative explaining how you came up with your FTE numbers.

Maura, is this a campus where bikes aren't used? I see tons of bikes on campuses—seems reasaonable to have bike racks.

I see your point that there isn't car travel to begin with, so the bike racks don't serve that purpose, but I'm working around the edges of your question and trying to understand why no bike racks?

We do have racks, and bicycles are used to a small extent, but don't want to put an excessively large rack at this site just because LEED says so. We have a rack large enough to accommodate the adult users (i.e. potential car commuters).

Hi Maura,

I am just taking a look at a somewhat outdated version of an 'Application Guide for a Campus' that I dug up at the office.

It states:
1. Provide one or more CENTRAL shared bicycle storage, shower + changing rooms that service 3% of building occupants and located within 500m of each LEED building.
OR
2. Provide one or more CENTRAL shared bicycle storage, shower + changing rooms that service 3% of total Campus FTEs within 500m of the building.
AND FOR BOTH OPTIONS:
Provide local secure storage for at least 2% FTEs within 100 yds of the LEED building.

It seems like the LEED reviewer is playing hardball with this credit for some reason or another on your project (It happens to the best of us). I do not think that the aforementioned LEED for Campus method will be of the greatest assistance, but I wanted to make sure you knew all the options. I would respond to the reviewer by stating that you are a campus and if you provided 3% bike racks for this LEED building it should also overlap the 2% local bike rack requirement because it is just a single LEED building.

And as a last resort, if this credit is a LEED certification (IE Silver --> Gold) deal breaker, there are many reasonably inexpensive bike rack solutions. I would even propose a student design/build competition to satisfy the need for bike racks. Let me know your thoughts.

Saris manufactures in the US
http://www.saris.com/en/bike-racks.html

You will need to have at least the 5 showers. It's good that you're providing changing rooms, but those do not count in the actual claculations.

This confuses me too. I always assumed both showers and changing rooms count towards the calcs. The LEED form clearly states says "showers or changing facilities". Leading one to believe that showers and changing rooms are separate and can both count towards the calculations.

One of my projects has 5 showers and a changing area with benches and lockers. I assume the changing area would count as at least 1 towards a total of 6 showers and changing facilities.

You need changing facilities to comply with the credit, but the number of those facilities is not so important, and shouldn't be summed with the number of showers, as they are usually shared locker rooms or the equivalent. The number of showers is the number that matters.

Why are you not using a master site for SSc4.2? This seems to be the reviewer's concern.

To be honest I don't know why, I don't really know much about the other campus projects, we did not do the campus plan. But, there is no rule that a project is required to use the master site for SSc4.2, master site credits are optional. Each building would still need to show that their racks and showers are within the required distances. Depending on bldg locations, it might not make sense to use the master site for credit documentation.

I think it makes more sense to use the Master Site if you have it available for the bike racks. Showers are different, so long as they are within the project boundary--but again, the reviewer is looking for verification that you aren't 'double dipping' on documentation, and that the facilities/racks provided are convenient and used by the occupants using the building you are seeking certification for.

I've been using all occupants per the NC guide to calculate the bike and changing facilities for our hospital projects. However, I've not had to submit for this credit since HC was formally adopted. Have you called the GBCI and asked them if you can use the HC standard? They will likely ask you why you don't move the project to HC.

Dave,
That sounds like a very reasonable approach, although I haven't come across any precedents that match your situation. The showers in the adjacent lodge can be used as long as there aren't other LEED projects double dipping on those shower counts.

Hi Sara,

Since the showers are in a health club, obviously people other than your LEED project occupants will use them. Therefore, it must be demonstrated that those other people will not compromise your project occupants' ability to use the showers when needed. Since membership is required for the health club, your assumption is correct. Demonstrate that the health club has a sufficient number of showers to serve 0.5% of the health club's current members, including your 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..

Also, there are only 14 beds, so the residential portion is very small compared to the entire 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..

Hi Megan,

Covered bicycle storage must be provided for residential occupants. However, the residential occupants may be exempted in this case if your submittal includes a short narrative indicating the number of occupants who have been excluded from the bicycle storage calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from on site storage facilities. Also, refer to LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. 5019, which states that "longer-term" occupants must be included under the residential requirement of covered bicycle parking for 15% of occupants, as these occupants reside in the building and bicycle use may be offsetting car, bus or other transit trips. Based on this interpretation, your project may be required to provide the covered storage.

Tobias,
The peak building user occupancy (sum 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 and transients during the regularly occurring moment with the highest volume of total users) will be used in the calculation to determine the required number of bicycle storage spaces. I hope this answers your question?

It does seem odd that according to CS Appendix 1 in the BD&C Reference guide a core and shell building that is 100% office that does not have final occupant counts is calculated with 0 transients.

If you have an NC project where you know what kind of offices will be using the building, you can provide a reasonable estimate of visitors/ transients that are likely to come.

For a Core and Shell office building where you have no idea what kind of office will be there it looks like we are allowed to assume 0 visitors, but that seems unlikely. To be safe, you could assume some transients and include them in the peak occupancy number for calculating bike racks.

The comprehensive trans. management plan is the main EP option for SSc4, but for SSc4.1 only there is an Option 2: Double Transit Ridership. There are more details on that under SSc4.1.

No, "total occupancy" or code occupancy is not necessary here. It's up to the project team to define reasonable assumptions about how full the building is likely to be, which are often based on enrollment/ attendance/ customer assumptions made during the project palnning or programming. A letter, program, or planning document should suffice.

Jiri,

I don't believe there is anything in LEED that would prevent that. Make sure, however, that you address some questions about how usable and safe the facility will actually be for cyclists, such as:

1. Are you talking about bicyclists riding their bicycles, or walking them, down and up the ramp?
2. If they will be walking their bicycles, will it be OK for all pedestrians to walk up and down the ramps? (A cyclist off of their bicycle is a pedestrian.)
3. If riding, make sure overhead clearances are comfortable for a person on a bike, which can be a lot taller than you might assume -- I found an online bicycle facility design handbook which says that the design height of an adult rider on a bicycle ranges from 50" to 88". If clearances are not comfortable, include caution signage specifically addressing cyclists.
4. Is the steepness and length of the ramps comfortable for a person riding or walking their bicycle? (Consider the uphill, exit trip as well.) How about when wet?
5. Are sightlines unobstructed and safe such that drivers can easily see a bicyclist/pedestrian on the ramp(s)?
6. Do the layouts of the entry/exit to the garage, the ramp(s), and the parking area force drivers to drive carefully on the ramps, or do they enable fast, inattentive driving?
7. Is this in an area (city / part of the world) where drivers are used to watching for cyclists? Or might they assume that a cyclist on the ramp is "in the wrong place" and potentially react aggressively to the cyclist's presence in "their" right of way, slowing them down?

And a couple of thoughts on design considerations:
1. Include 'caution' signage at the top and bottom of the ramps which says something like "Bicylces [or Pedestrians] on ramps" with a standard bike graphic. This lets drivers know that they cyclists have a right to be there.
2. If the ramps are long and/or include turns which make visibility problematic, but you really need to do this solution, consider a cyclist-activated warning signal. Some tunnels on the narrow two-lane highway along the scenic Oregon Coast have warning signs which say "Bicycles in tunnel when flashing" with flashing yellow lights. A cyclist presses a button to activate the flashers, then rides through the tunnel. Drivers know to proceed slowly and with additional caution.

FC1. A footcandle (fc) is a measure of light falling on a given surface. One footcandle is defined as the quantity of light falling on a 1-square-foot area from a 1 candela light source at a distance of 1 foot (which equals 1 lumen per square foot). Footcandles can be measured both horizontally and vertically by a footcandle meter or light meter. 2. The non-metric measurement of lumens per square foot, one footcandle is the amount of light that is received one foot from a light source called a candela, which is based on the light output of a standardized candle. A common range for interior lighting is 10 to 100 footcandles, while exterior daytime levels can range from 100 to over 10,000 footcandles. Footcandles decrease with distance from the light source. The metric equivalent of a foot candle is 10.76 lux, or lumens per square meter., for a possible exception, see David's response earlier on this forum under "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. for multi purpose building."

There may be some possibility to such an exception, but I would also repeat something noted in another earlier forum post: all credits are not applicable to all projects.