-
Plenty of options
This credit offers multiple options for residential and non-residential projects. These strategies help to reduce the number of cars on the road, cut down on the sprawl of parking facilities, and decrease the negative environmental impacts of parking infrastructure, including stormwater runoff and the urban heat islandA densely populated area in which pavement and buildings absorb, store, and release solar energy, making the vicinity warmer than it would be if the pavement and buildings were not present. effect.
Getting mileage out of your efforts
Assess the location and context of your project to make sure that carpooling, public transportation (see SSc4.1), walking and bicycle commuting (see SSc4.2) are viable strategies for reducing single-occupancy vehicle use.
If all you do is limit parking capacity in an area where options other than driving aren’t viable, your efforts could prove frustrating to drivers rather than truly beneficial. You may also want to consider implementing a program to incentivize public transit and carpooling.
Consider no new parking
This credit is fairly straightforward for most projects. Projects that either have no parking or are not providing additional parking automatically qualify. To make this work from a practical perspective, it’s a good idea to locate in an area with good public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
You can also provide parking, with some caveats
Non-residential projects that will be providing new parking will need to reduce parking capacity to not exceed minimum zoning requirements and provide 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 carpools.
Residential projects that will be providing new parking will need to reduce parking capacity to not exceed minimum zoning requirements and facilitate programs to encourage carpooling among residents. 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 indicate that mixed-use projects have to meet both requirements, on a proportional basis.
Follow these basic steps when approaching this credit
- Identify the appropriate strategy based on your project type and the context of the individual project. If providing no new parking, go ahead and document the credit. If providing parking, follow the remaining steps.
- Confirm 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. for the project.
- Confirm local minimum zoning requirements for parking capacity.
- Determine the number of preferred parking spaces required or develop a ride-sharing program for your project.
- Include parking locations in the construction documents to ensure that signage and additional markings are included in the construction budget.
- Consider earning an exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. point for a comprehensive transportation management plan.
- Document the credit and upload the documentation to LEED Online.
-
Don't double-count parking spaces
If your project is pursuing both SSc4.3 and SSc4.4, be careful not to double-count 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 allotted for those credits. The total number of preferred parking spaces must be equal to those required for SSc4.3, plus those required for SSc4.4. The same parking space cannot count for both credits (although they do not have to be distinguished through signage).
Legend
- Best Practices
- Gotcha
- Action Steps
- Cost Tip
Pre-Design
Expand All
This is generally a low-cost credit. Reducing built parking capacity can even reduce construction and maintenance costs. The only added cost might be signage for preferred parking spaces, if applicable.
Design Development
Expand All
Proceed based on your chosen compliance path:
Option 3: Check local zoning laws and make sure your project’s parking capacity meets but does not exceed minimum zoning requirements, and develop the infrastructure and support programs for minimizing single-occupancy vehicles. Consider incorporating programs for car-share, ride boards (or website), carpool drop off locations, designated parking for carpools, and shuttle services to mass transit.
Option 4: Verify that the project is not providing any new parking spaces.
USGBC
Excerpted from LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations Version 2.2
SS Credit 4.4: Alternative transportation - parking capacity
1 Point
Intent
Reduce pollution and land development impacts from single occupancy vehicle use.
Requirements
Option 1 — non-residential
- Size parking capacity to not exceed minimum local zoning requirements, AND, provide 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 carpools or vanpools for 5% of the total provided parking spaces.
OR
Option 2 — non-residential
For projects that provide parking for less than 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. building occupants:
- Provide prefered parking for carpools or vanpools, marked as such, for 5% of total provided parking spaces.
OR
Option 3 — residential
- Size parking capacity to not exceed minimum local zoning requirements, AND, provide infrastructure and support programs to facilitate shared vehicle usage such as carpool drop-off areas, designated parking for vanpools, or car-share services, ride boards, and shuttle services to mass transit.
OR
Option 4 — all
Provide no new parking.
Notes:
“Preferred parking” refers to the parking spots that are closest to the main entrance of the project (exclusive of spaces designated for handicapped) or parking passes provided at a discounted price.
When parking minimums are not defined by relevant local zoning requirements, or when there are no local zoning requirements, either:
A) Meet the requirements of Portland, Oregon, Zoning Code: Title 33, Chapter 33.266 (Parking and Loading)
OR, if this standard is not appropriate for the building type,
B) Install 25% less parking than the building type's average listed in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation study, 3rd Edition.
Potential Technologies & Strategies
Minimize parking lot/garage size. Consider sharing parking facilities with adjacent buildings. Consider alterna- tives that will limit the use of single occupancy vehicles.
Publications
Portland, Oregon Title 33 Planning and Zoning - Chapter 33.266 for Parking and Loading, Table 266-1 and 266-2
For campus projects, if applicable local zoning code indicates there are no minimum parking capacity requirements, or if the campus entity is exempt from local codes, the LEED-NC Campus Application Guide calls for sizing the parking capacity in transit-oriented developments (TOD’s) according to the minimum requirements by building typology outlined in this resource.
Commuting Guide for Employers
This website outlines strategies employers can use to encourage employees to commute by bicycle.
U.S. EPA and Department of Transportation, Best Workplaces for Commuters
This program publicly recognizes employers who have exemplary commuter benefits programs. It provides tools, guidance, and promotions to help employers give commuter benefits, reap the financial gains, and achieve national recognition.
U.S. EPA, Transportation and Air Quality
This site provides information on the types and effects of air pollution associated with automobile use and links to resources for organizations interested in promoting commuter choice programs.
Web Tools
Ride sharing site
This website helps to organize carpooling trips and rewards members for reduced single-occupancy vehicles.
Tips for Vanpooling
Provides general tips for setting up a vanpool program, and provides a template for writing a program for vanpooling.
eRideshare.com
Website set up to organize carpooling.
Software Tools
Carpooling network
For Short and Long Distance Carpooling: Through the Carpooling Network’s integrated software, you can find carpool mates for your single or long distance trips, whether in Canada or the United States.
Organizations
Smart Commute
Smart Commute is a program of Research Triangle Park that has valuable information about telecommuting and carpool programs useful for any organization.
No New Parking
Pursuing the option to provide no new parking is straightforward to document, as with this sample narrative.
Samples
Site Plan – Parking Meeting Local Zoning Requirements
Option 1
Document Option 1 with a site plan like this one, showing parking meeting but not exceeding local zoning requirements.
LEED Online Sample Template – SSc4.4
This template is the flattened, public version of the dynamic template for this credit that is used within LEED-Online v2 by registered project teams. This and other public versions of LEED credit templates come from the USGBC website, and are posted on LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. You'll need to fill out the live version of this template on LEED Online to document this credit.
Design Submittal
Documentation for this credit can be part of a Design Phase submittal.
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC.
37 Comments
Bus Parking spots qualify for car/vanpool preferred parking?
I am working on a project that is a botanical garden visitor center that is frequented as a school field trip destination. We are planning parking spaces for busses and I would like to know if the bus parking spaces could qualify as part of the percentage of car/vanpool 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. requirement (the spots are close to the entry and I believe qualify as preferred)?
While you could argue that buses definitely quailify as "carpooling" based off the definition of "carpooling" given in the reference guide, "an agreement by which two or more people share a vehicle for transportation" it seems 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 dated 2/2/2004 says otherwise; "per CIR ruling dated 2/2/2004, shuttle bus parking cannot be used to substitute carpool spaces."
Their may be a case to be made if you can argue that your busing situation is different enough from a "shuttle bus" but I don't know if I'd count on it. Personally, I'd put in the _car_pool spaces to be safe. Depending on where you project is in design/construction, it is much easier to install the signs before construction is complete than afterwards...
Minimum zoning requirements
On a government project pursuing LEED v2.2, we are provided fewer parking spaces than the minimum local zoning requirements. The LEED template for this credit states, "Parking capacity must meet, but not exceed, minimum local zoning requirements..." Do we have to meet minimum zoning requirements to earn this credit, or just not exceed the requirements?
Laura, I think you are fine providing fewer spaces. The language in the credit suggests you have to "meet" the requirements but the intent is to NOT provide excessive parking- which you are certainly doing. I presume that the reason you are not meeting the local zoning requirements is that the government project is not required to do so. In effect, you ARE meeting the requirements of your particular project. Either way, I think you are meeting the intent of the credit.
Parking Calculations in a Campus Environment
Hi,
Our team is working on a building in a campus environment, and we are trying to calculate the correct number of parking spaces required for a project where no local zoning code is applied. The previous response to the inquiry from Sep 17, 2010 references the Portland Oregon Zoning Code, Title 33 Ch 33.266 which reads “Meet the Portland Oregon Zoning Code,” but does not mention whether to use Standard A (minimum requirements) or Standard B (maximum requirements) in Table 266-2. Which standard applies to a LEED project?
Also, the LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC) on page 16 requires parking to be sized according to the minimum set by Title 33 Ch 33.266, but only for transit-oriented developments. Which standard applies to campus entities that are not considered TODs?
Thanks!
Caleb, I am pretty sure it is the mininum requirement that is referenced.
minimum zoning requirements
Hi,
I'm working on the certification of a building that only has indoors parking on the underground floor.
How can we calculate de minimum zoning requirements for parking? does it have relation with MPR's?
Minimum zoning is based on local regulations, so you would need to contact the local zoning authority where you project is located. Since this is a v2.2 project the MPRs do not apply.
More parking spaces than local zoning requirements
We have 2 buildings to be certified as a multiple buildings situation. They are part of an industrial plant with several other buildings that won't seek LEED. However, the parking spaces that serve the entire plant are located within the LEED site boundary, right next to those 2 buildings. That said, I have 2 questions:
1) Is it possilbe to justify to the LEED commitee that there are a lot more parking spaces (than the minimum local zoning requirements) within the LEED boundary because most of them are serving the entire plant?
2) In either case, to comply with credits SSc4.3 e SSc4.4, to which number of parking spaces should I apply the 5% percentage to? To the number of the minimum local zoning (assuming that I will be able to justify the exceeding parking spaces) parking spaces or to the total number of parking spaces (those for the entire plant)?
Thank you very much!
Thank you very much!
Marcio, I would look more carefully at whether you can justify excluding the extra parking from your LEED boundary. I thnk that would make both of these questions much more straightforward. See the LEED MPR supplemental guidance document for some guidelines on this.
Oh, sorry—it's a pre-2009 project so the MPRs don't apply.
Still, I would advise revisiting the boundary.
No New Parking?
Hello,
We have a project on campus with 620 occupants and we have provided no new parking. However, we did have to provide a small service lot in the back of the building with two ADA accessible spaces, one service vehicle space and two spaces for small electric fleet vehicles. No occupants are allowed to use these spaces; only authorized vehicles.
Would this be considered no new parking?
Thanks
John, I would say this is debatable, and you may 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 know for sure. There is precedent for parking associated with the "process" of the building to not be considered parking for SSc4—think parking at a rental car facility. Maybe the three non-ADA spots could be considered thus. The ADA spots really throw a wrench into that argument, though.
Is there other parking associated with the building?
Tristan, we have off-site parking on other parts of campus where the building occupants can purchase a permit for, but nothing new that was built in junction with our project other then the 2 small electric vehicle spaces, 2 ADA and 1 security space. We have a good bus system and it seems to me that we are meeting the intent of this credit; reducing site disturbance while incentivising alternative transportation. I guess it depends on how technical the reviewer wants to get.
I'll look into 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 you mentioned, and thanks for the quick response.
design phase credit denied
I have a question about review process. If we are at the end of final design review completed and we have an item marked denied, are we able to revise our documentation and resubmit these during construction phase review? If we accept the final review are we still able to work out the reporting requirements to earn the items identified as denied in design application?
Keelan - Unfortunately once you accept the final review for the Design Submittal, you may not return to those denied Design credits. You either accept the reviewer's disposition and lose the denied Design credits or submit an appeal for denied Design credits you wish to achieve. Ideally, those appeals will be accepted and then can you proceed to the Construction Submittal. The only exception to that is that I have had reviewers allow me to change innovation credit topics due the semantics of half the ID credits being termed Design and half being termed Construction. But for all intents, think of them as two stand-alone reviews.
Tim, very helpful, thanks. Since there are no follow-up technical comments or advice accompanying the denied credit, what is the best strategy for achieving a successful appeal when the problem is likely informational? Is there a means to discuss the issue with the reviewer to better understand the reporting problem?
Keelan,
In your preliminary design review was this credit marked for clarification? It's surprising to see a credit denied without any explanation. Usually you'd have technical comments and advice from the preliminary review that have to be addressed very specifically. I'm wondering if the reviewer didn't see any changes or revisions? Many teams will upload a separate memo called "Review Response" or "Clarification" in the supporting documents to answer the preliminary review issues and to make sure the final review sees the response.
As far as who to contact, if you got an email notifying you of the design phase review, look for an email address or name in that email, or contact GBCI. Hope this gets cleared up.
Non-Residential with New Parking (80% + Fuel Efficient/Electric)
We are trying to achieve credit SSc4 option 2 for NC 2.2. Our project is on a college campus- outside of the campus transportation services zoning because it is a user support building for student housing. There is no local zoning, so I followed Portland Zoning as the guide requires. We have a total number of 21 parking space, of which 14 are for low-emitting "GEM" like electric vehicles only, therefore they are smaller in size than a normal stall. We also provide on van-pool and one handicap on site. This leaves us with 5 remaining regular parking stalls. If I calculate the carpool requirements of 5% of total parking capacity, then we are required to provide 2 carpool spaces. This would be a bit of a waste since the remaining 5 spaces are simply for maintenance worker vehicles providing service around the campus. Does anyone know a way around this? Are we required to include the electric vehicle parking in the calc? I know this is a bit fuzzy, but if anyone has come across a similar situation please let me know.
Thanks!
Kathryne,
Can you elaborate a little bit more of what your proposing. From your question I first thought you might be falling under Option 3, but I'm unsure. Are you providing refueling stations for the GEM cars? Or are you just providing the cars themselves (which would fall under Option 1)? Either way, when you calculate the number of spaces for SSc4.4, it is of the total parking capacity, not what's left after providing spaces for SSc4.3.
Thanks Larry, i will try to clarify. This project is a service (maintenance/ admin etc) building for college housing. Total on-site parking is 21 spaces. This means we are required to have 2 carpool spaces when rounding up. Of the 21 spaces, 14 are small parking spaces that will only fit GEM size carts. The parking lots is strictly for maintenance workers moving around the campus and coming back to park at the service center.(ie. painters, repairmen etc.) All vehicles are provided by the campus. No one will be parking here that would be "carpooling". There are parking garages on campus where employees park their own personal vehicles. We do provide one "van-pool" space, for a vehicle that acts as a van pool transporting people around campus. Another space is a handicap spot. This leaves 5 regular size spaces for maintenance trucks. If we are required to make on of those remaining space a carpool space, this would be a wasted parking spot. Do you see any way of achieving this credit by not including the maintenance vehicle parking spaces?
Kathryne, maybe this is off the wall, but.... do these maintenance personnel sometimes go places together (carpoolling), and would it not make sense ecologically to reward that by giving them a preferred spot when they are doing that?
My other thoughts here:
- Perhaps this credit is not a good fit for the project.
- What if you put the carpool space in, and let them sort out how to use it?
prison facility with no zoning
Following the ITE Parking Generation 3rd Edition, there is no data for prison facilities although they do have a "Land Use code" for that use (#571). Called ITE and didn't get a satisfactory answer (no answer). I am using the numbers for an elementary school assuming that 1. inmates and elementary students don't drive, 2. each will have visitors. I used the higher number of parking spaces per elementary student vs. middle school students as I thought more people/family would come to visit the inmates during visiting hours. Middle school students are expressing their independence and don't want parents and others coming around.
Do you think this is a reasonable approach to this credit? If not, what do you suggest?
Yes, this seems reasonable to me.
Have you checked the available material on the 4th edition of the ITE report? I wonder if prisons are addressed.
I made a phone call to ITE and was able to speak with someone (Gina) who keeps track of this stuff. The have no parking data for prisons. So, I willl follow the path described and see what happens.
Peter - Were you successful with this approach?
Very late response but, incase anyone encounters this again, we were successful in using our adhoc approach for our prison project. Project is certified.
Clarification on "Provide no new parking"
Our building was built on a previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." site with a parking count of 400 spaces. Because of our new building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint., about 60 of those spaces were removed. We provided 18 new parking spaces on the one side of the building putting our new parking count at 358 spaces. We technically provided "new parking" but our overall parking count still diminished from the existing parking count. Can we still try to follow the compliancy of "Provide no new parking" by saying the spaces were simply "relocated"?
I would say yes, if you can provide an existing parking plan that shows the 400 spaces and the proposed site plan that shows the 358 spaces in your final documentation. Even though you are installing 18 spaces, it is still less than the existing so I agree that attempting the credit under the No New Parking Option is a good choice.
Using Parking Generation 3rd Edition.
Our project is a museum on a college campus with no zoning requirements. I have used the Parking Generation 3rd Edition however the museum information does not provide a single average to use. It states that there is so much deviation in this catagory that there is no correlation between the independent variable (1000 sq.ft.) and parked vehicles. I can think of several ways to approach this issue including: using the information from the case study most similar to our project, averaging the numbers of all studies (though they are VERY different case by case) and comparing our project to this average, etc. Is there an approach that is preferable or has been used in this case?
I don't know of what the reviewers would consider as preferable in this case. However, it sounds like the most accurate method may be using a case study most similar to your project type or perhaps using a project type of similar size. Most credits that have been attempted by and alternate compliance path are accepted by providing a clearly defined approach and a description of how the project intends to meet the credit. Of course you could always submit 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 more guidance. Through my research I didn't find anything currently that may help guide you. Please keep us informed of your approach.
Site with no Zoning Requirements
One of my projects is on a Military Base with no Zoning Requirements. Some credits have a specific option for such sites, but it appears this credit does not provide a specific option for sites with no zoning requirements, is that correct? We could pursue Option 2, however it is a teaching facility and 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. number of instructors is tiny compared to the total building users including visitors (students). Is there any precedent to taking the 5% parking count of total building users for visitor dominated uses?
Lauren,
The credit actually does provide some advice for projects such as yours. Quoted from the 3rd edition of v2.2 NC ref guide, "When parking minimums are not defined by relevant local zoning requirements, or when there are no local zoning requirements..." you can either Meet the Portland Oregon Zoning Code, Title 33 Ch 33.266 - this std lists the maximum number of parking spots allowed OR if your building type does not fall under this standard, install 25% less parking than the building type's average listed in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Parking Generation study, 3rd edition.
After you follow this, I think Option 1 would be more straightforward since you would be referencing one of the codes listed above as your local zoning requirement.
Parking vs. "Vehicle Storage"
If a maintenance facility must include "vehicle storage", a separate category per City zoning, does this impact the LEED parking calculation?
Jerry, you may find this forum thread on SSc4.4 v2009 about a 2008 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 vehicle maintenance spots helpful.
I think you may have a case for excluding the vehicle storage from your parking calcs—if that's what you were thinking of doing.
Please post back with how this goes and additional thoughts.
Rounding-off the total Number of carpool parking
Hello,
I just want to ask if I could just have 2 parkings instead of 3 parkings for carpooling if the answer of the 5% of total parking spaces is 2.1? Please advise. Thank you.
For SSc4.2, you always have to round up, even from 2.1 to 3. I don't know this for sure, but I assume this would also be the case with SSc4.4.
Start a new LEED comment thread