NC 2009 SSc4.2: Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms

I wouldn't think so. This credit is to provide access to showers, and since the showers can be in another building they aren't part of the plumbing scope of your project building, and could be outside of your control..

from my project experience, no they do not question the flows of showers outside of the project scope.

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.

Michael, thanks for really detailed answer. You helped a lot!

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.

L Ch,

I think it is unlikely GBCI will allow you to omit the shower. Usually if you cannot meet the requirments of this credit the review team will tell you that not all credits are applicable to every project. You could submit a formal query to GBCI, but I think it's a long shot.

That sounds reasonable, espeically if the letter states the estimated number of people who will have access, and the agreement is not a temporary one.

Also, LEED Retail offers a SSc4, Option 7 "Alternative Transportation Education" which requires the provision of a board that provides information on carpooling, transit trip planning, transit maps, maps of bicycle routes, etc. It seems to me that if you achieve the requirements of Option 7, then you would certainly achieve the bicycle route assistance requirement that I mentioned above. Does that sound reasonable?

Zachary, I don't have experience with this but your approach sounds reasonable to me. I would also suggest distributing brochures, emails, etc.—doing something to push this information out more actively.

I've always used walking distance without problems. I'm not saying that is more right just what I have done. The RG does say that the 200 yards is measured from "a" door not the main door. Is it possible you have a door closer? Hopefully someone else can answer the distance question more definitively.

Possibly - if the number of showers is 0.5% 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. of both buildings combined, then it is adequate to serve both buildings. If it only has enough showers to serve the FTE of one building, than it can only be used for one building's certification.

For calculating 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. of hotels, see the comments below from August 8, 2011 and see interpretation # 1567 in the LEED Interpretations database. These describe how many hotels can exclude the guests from the count of transients using bikes if the location is one where guests are not expected to arrive by bike Some hotels might expect bike travelers as guests, such as on a popular bike tour route. Many hotels will also make bikes available to guests for local use once they have arrived, so consider that possibility.
If the hotel has a restaurant or other facilities open to the public, there could possibly be visitors arriving by bike from other hotels or the local area. If so, you could calculate the number of transient visitors for retail or restaurant using the default numbers found in the BD&C Reference Guide Appendix 1: assume 1 transient for every 130 sf of retail, and 1 transient for every 95 sf of restaurant.
Yes, for hotel staff you will need bike racks for 5% of the peak number of staff (the busiest shift). Then use 0.05 * 230 to calculate the # of showers for hotel staff.
For the residences you are also correct to use 15% of the residential occupancy to calculate the number of bike racks for them - these will need to be covered. If the residences are all one bedroom units, you would assume 2 people per unit, but for two- bedroom units assume 3 people, three-bedroom units assume 4, etc. See BD&C Reference Guide page 53 for this explanation.
Hope that helps!

One shower is fine, as long as it's accessible to everyone. This is a common path to achieving this credit.

Correct, most mixed use projects we've seen with a small amount of ground floor retail has been core and shell space built out later. Typically a Tenant Manual is prepared for the future tenants encouraging them to follow LEED guidelines, providing information and resources on compliant materials, products, and strategies.
You'll still need to include retail staff and customers in 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. and transient counts for bike racks - use CS Appendix 1 for gsf/ occupant. Hope that helps!

Can someone point out where it says that if the commercial area is less than 10% gsf, the project can be considered a residential project and therefore no need for shower access for retail employees? I cannot find this exemption anywhere in the LEED documents?

In the searchable LEED Interpretations database, look for ID# 3111 (from 4/4/2005 for SSc4.4) and ID# 5076 (from 9/10/2007 for SSc4.2.)

You should be able to search just by the ID number. The applicability chart indicates these "may" be applied to more current projects "if reasonable and appropriate." Hope that helps!

Almost - it depends on the reasons for excluding the transients, and you also need to round up your numbers when there is a fraction (25.25 becomes 26 spaces). From past 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 rulings, we are typically required to include the peak transients in calculating the number of bike spaces. We don't have to include those transients in calculating the number of showers, however. Is your commercial 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. number based on employees and no commercial visitors?

The only cases where projects have been allowed to exclude the transients from the bike spaces was in very specific situations where it shown that certain users would not be able to use bikes - inmates in a prison, travelers coming to an airport, patients in a critical care facility, etc.
Reviewers have usually rejected arguments that transient users wouldn't be biking based on past common practices, professional dress, climate conditions, etc. If adding the total bike spaces is not feasible, you could try proposing a reduced number, but you'd have to make a good case for it. Hope that helps!

Alicia, I would say that it could contribute to the credit, yes. My caveat would be that it depends on the number of FTEs in the building, whether you also need additional space.

Tristan,
Thank you very much for your reply.
The building is a data centre and will have very low occupancy (15 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.) therefore only one shower is required. I understand from your response that in this case this would still be accaptable. Is this correct?
Thank you very much.

Sounds fine as long as the shower is available to both male and female users.

Good question. In many countries, building codes often classify hotels as a "residential occupancy" though in LEED, hotels are usually considered commercial buildings. Thus FTE numbers and bike showering facilities are based on the hotel staff, whereas guests are usually considered transients. See LEED interpretations #2422, 2082, and 1698.

The Rating System Selection Guidance v2 document from Nov 24, 2010 defines Residential as "a space or building that is defined as a 'dwelling unit' by all applicable codes, and has a cooking area (comprised of sinks(s), cooking appliance(s), preparation spaces(s) and a bathroom." If the hotel doesn't have kitchens in all guest rooms, it's more clearly non-residential, but if it does have kitchens in all rooms it is less clear to me. If there is ambiguity, the LEED reviewer would probably look to how your building is classified by local codes, so you'll want to use that for guidance, but as we've seen, the codes may define the hotel as residential.

The intent of the different credit requirements is to provide better shelter and more storage for residential users. Since users of an extended stay hotel are possibly more likely to need and use bikes for transit than a short term hotel user, it would be safer to assume the residential classification. If this is a concern for your project, you might 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 to get a definite answer.

On some project types, you can make a reasonable and credible assumption that very few of the transient building occupants or visitors will be riding bikes - airports, hotels, and assisted living facilities have been granted exceptions in the past. On the other hand, for many standard building types you could argue all kinds of reasons why people won't ride a bike - time of day, type of user, level of dress, climate, geographic location, etc.

Since the intent of the credit is to encourage and reward a change in behavior, transform the market place, and not accept the status quo as unchangeable, I doubt you'd get an exemption for a movie theater. You can always try, but you may get a response along the lines of "not all credits are appropriate for all project types," which is often the case.

This has come up as a concern - There is 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 on this issue in the Interpretations database that came from a local project. Look for:
Inquiry Number: 5076
MPR/Prerequisite/Credit: SSc4.2: Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
Posting date: 9/10/2007
The ruling was:
"The project is seeking clarification regarding the requirements of SSc4.2 for mixed-use projects. While showers/changing rooms are not required for building staff in a residential building (or the residential portion of a mixed-use building), building staff must be counted as "occupants" when determining the number of bike parking spaces provided in these buildings."
In the "Applicable rating systems and tools" table of the interpretation, there is a check for LEED 2009, so it would appear to apply.

If the form doesn't calculate properly, you can always use the "alternative compliance path" option and include a narrative.
Hope that helps!

No, as long as they meet the credit requirement of being within 200 yards of a building entrance.

Hsin-Yi, I would recommend reviewing the credit requirements (which you can do above). You must provide bike racks for a percentage of all building users, but showers must only be provided for occupants, i.e. staff, etc.

Hi Tristan,
Thank you for quick reply. Now I realize showers are only provided for occupant. However, for bike storage, can you please check the template of this credit? When you choose Case2, which is residential project, the template only require total residents number.

Hsin-Yi, you could select BOTH Case 1 and also Case 2. That should clear it up.

Matt, I think this would work. I would be a bit concerned that you're requiring people to lift and hang the bike on the wall, which is less accessible than typical racks. I know some perfectly able-bodied bicycle users who would have physical difficulty with this. Could you include a mix of hanging and grounded storage?

That's a good point Tristan, which didn't occur to me. I will suggest to the owner we provide either a standard floor mounted bike rack or rail attached to the wall. Thanks!

Actually the technical requirement is "secure bicycle storage" so whateve is used must provide the ability to lock the bike to it. Hanging hooks could not do that, even if many people could get the bike hiked up...

Karen,
As I mentioned, there will also be a closed eye bolt for each hook which will allow the user to lock their bike.

We plan to install (2) floor mounted bike racks for folks who can't lift thier bike onto a hook.

Matt,
I assume that LEED would not look for this level of detail, but from a practical security standpoint, I would add a couple of comments on your proposed approach. Since I don't know what type of project it is, it's not clear how long users would typically be leaving their bikes, nor how (in-)secure the storage area itself is. Depending on the perceived theft risk, many riders would not feel comfortable leaving their bikes unless they can get a U-lock at least through the frame, the front wheel and the secure rack. Your solution doesn't sound like it would allow that. I would go so far as to argue that if the configuration forces a user to use a cable (versus a U-lock or other hardened lock), it's not really secure (unless it's inside a restricted-access room).

If you do go with eye bolts, make it as hefty as possible, so it will at least slow down someone with a cutting tool. Also, you want to make sure that the eye is large enough to easily pass a thick U-lock bar or the loop on the end of a cable through it.

Thanks Michael.

This project is a 5 story office building in an office park, and the bike storage is not attached to the main building - it is a seperate room that's part of the emergency generator enclosure. The bike room is covered, and I believe the owners will have a key card access on the door.

If riders have a U-lock, they can use the floor mounted bike racks so they can take off their front wheel and lock it through the frame and rear wheel if they want to. If I were a commuter at this building, I'd leave my cable lock locked up to an eye bolt so I don't have to lug it around.

I've been a cyclist for about 20 years and worked full and part time at bike shops for about 10 years. I'm confident my solution will work for riders of all types, I just wasn't sure what LEED's definition was.

Thanks for all the tips and insight.

Found this 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 seems to work in our favor.

SSc4.2: NC 4/23/2008
"Credit Interpretation Request"
Our project is a Senior Assisted Living Facility registered under the LEED NC 2.2 rating system. In addition to the residential component it includes a restaurant, shop and dining room and will be staffed 24 hours a day with a maximum of 22 staff 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 per shift.

We are requesting a ruling excluding the requirement to provide covered bike racks for the residential occupants, whom are unable to bike due to physical limitations and/or health problems. Due to the specific characteristics of the residential population, the project team feels that it is impractical to provide covered bike storage for 15% of the residents, as calculated for SSc4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bike Storage and Changing Rooms. Previous CIR rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 9/14/2006 set a precedence to exclude certain populations from the bicycle storage requirements based upon the practicality of that population to take advantage of the bicycle storage. LEED for Schools also addresses the issue of physical inability and/or safety by limiting the bike rack requirement to students above third grade.

To meet the intent of this credit we are proposing that we satisfy the requirements to serve the employees of the project and provide bicycle storage for 5% of the FTE and showers for 0.5% of the FTE and exclude the residential population from the calculation for bicycle storage"

"Ruling"
The CIR is requesting that their project be exempted from the requirement for covered bicycle racks for 15% of residents. This request is based on the physical limitations of the residents at this senior assisted living facility and the assumption that they will not be riding bicycles with any regularity. The project has proposed to meet the credit by providing bicycle racks for 5% of the staff FTE, and showers for .5% of the staff FTE, with the residents entirely excluded from the calculations.

Based on previous CIRs, especially the ruling dated 12/2/07 under SSc4.4, physically incapacitated residents can be excluded from credit calculations determining bicycle racks. However, in order for the credit requirements to be satisfied, the bicycle racks must be sized to accommodate 5% of both the FTE staff, and the peak transient occupancy including visitors. The proposal to size the showers for 0.5% of the FTE staff is appropriate for credit compliance. Please note that employee shower facilities must be separate from resident shower facilities."

Found another 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 I thought might be useful for those interested in exceptions made for those that cannot be reasonably expected to arrive to the project site by bicycle:

LEED Interpretation 2422 includes further clarification regarding bicycle storage and site visitor numbers. The interpretation distinguishes between visitors to a site whom can not reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle and those which may be expected to arrive to the site by bicycle, as they relate to the occupancy counts for this credit.

Inquiry Number: 2422
MPR/Prerequisite/Credit: SSc4.2: Alternative
Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
Posting date: 1/23/2009

The project team is pursuing LEED- NCv2.2 SSc4.2 and is requesting an exemption for hotel guests from the onsite bike storage requirement. Per previous CIR ruling (NCv2.1 SSc4.2 ruling dated 09/14/06), the proposed approach to exclude hotel guests from onsite bike storage requirements is appropriate given the proximity of the project to mass transit and the explanation provided. When submitting this credit, the narrative should include the number of people that are excluded from SSc4.2 occupancy counts and why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle. The submittal should also state how guests with bicycles will be accommodated. See the LEED NCv2.1 SSc4.2 CIR ruling dated 5/13/2007 for information on calculating hotel occupancy. As you correctly mention, other transient occupants such as retail customers should be included in occupancy counts, along with all the FTEs (all building staff and office tenants) and building residents.

LEED HC uses just staff FTEs at peak shift to determine the bike racks. If your team has decided that LEED HC is not the program for them, you might review that credit strategy as part of your narrative /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 for this project. It seems that the CIRs you mention here were reviewed in the HC draft process and incorporated into their credit write up.

I think it's safe to assume that one person living in those units won't be riding a bicycle, but their family members could.

Hi Stefania-We encountered a similar question with a dining hall for an under-served population and were questioned on our strategy to provide bike parking for only those folks who could conceivably bike to the building--the paid employees. We proposed that the requirement did NOT apply to those who a) did not own bikes, b) weren't allowed to have anything with wheels because of their participation in drug rehab programs and c) volunteers in later years who didn't usually bike. We also made the argument that because it is a high crime area, cyclists are targets. In the end we gave up! But because I am now working on a project in the same neighborhood and very similar to yours, we intend to file an interpretation request. If the fees are an issue, you could always gamble by providing a very strong, descriptive narrative with your application. To play it safe though, perhaps Eric's approach is the best bet. Just a story to share! Marian

Also, reviewers have pointed out that the ability or mobility of occupants can change over time as the building program changes, so just because a unit is being designated as "adaptable" doesn't exclude occupants of those units from having bikes at some point in the future. The same could be said of the crime risk.

Eric, Marian, thank you for the guidance. My issue is really related to space: we only have room for 23 bike rack spots. However, if I take Eric's approach in calculating the number of residents that's the amount that's required. Thanks again.

Hi David, I think it's safe to assume that if a disabled resident in a social housing building is no longer considered disabled he/she would be relocated into a unit that is not adaptable in order to make room for another disabled person. I think I will make this argument. Good call though, thank you for bringing up the point.

I am by no means an expert on accessibility but I have usually gone by the premise that we should not assume that disabled people will do or will not do anything - there are many people who have disabilities that limit some activities but allow others (and watching paralympics and other sports, many "disabled" people are far more "able" than many of us!) . I would be more conservative and say that you cannot adjust the numbers based on adaptable / accessibility standards.

Charlie, this would not generally be a successful strategy—there are lots of projects that have many valid reasons for having fewer bike racks than the credit requires. For better or worse, LEED provides an objective yardstick with credits like this, and some projects won't be able to meet the required measure.

Where are the storage units located? Is it likely they will be occupied by other stuff? Who are they accessible to?

I share your concern, but I would need a bit more information to have a more informed opinion.

Hi Tristan,

Our project is a 9-story apartment. Each unit will be designed with a storage room inside. The design team want to use this space as bike storage room. Each storage room only can be used by its own apartment renter. Thank you.

That should be acceptable. We've seen this credit approved with similar strategies: as long as each unit has it's own storage area that is large enough for a bike, and as long as there is enough other storage in the unit for typical items such as clothing, etc, I would think this is ok.

If there was a common storage area in the building shared by all residents that could get filled up with non-bike stuff, I think that would be a problem. Also, if the living units are very small with very little total storage for each unit, it might be hard to convince the reviewer there's enough room for a bike.

But if each unit has control over it's own storage, and it is big enough, anyone with a bike can be sure of having a place to keep it.

Putting myself in the shoes of a LEED reviewer, I might want some evidence that it is practical to haul a bike through the front doors, into an elevator, and down a corridor. Consider door hold opens at the front entry (like the pushbutton devices often used for wheelchair access), elevator cabs deep enough to accommodate a bike, and no carpeting along the path of travel. I'd also be suspicious about any attempt to comply with IEQc5... it's tough to control indoor pollutants when folks are rolling bicycles through the corridors. Without the inclusion of a few additional amenities to make bike storage practical in these rooms, I'd be inclined to view your attempt as a stretch.

Although it's not strictly a LEED concern, one could expect many scuffs, scrapes, and tire marks on walls and doors along the way.

On the other hand, specifying a simple wall-mounted bike hook on the wall in each storage room might go a long way towards demonstrating a good faith effort.