Pilot-Credits PC12: Reduced Automobile Dependence

Sarah, I attempted the Pilot Credit and the idea of going for 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. as well crossed my mind, but it seemed a bit too much. I guess it is worth a try ...

As you note, the pilot credit language did not differentiate between lines and stops sufficiently. This is partly a product of the fact that this particular credit language came over from LEED-ND, which was designed to address neighborhood scale projects in which it would be possible for the multiple dwelling units in an ND project to be distribtued along a transit route. However, that aspect doesn't translate well to LEED-NC or other building-specific rating systems and the LP-TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. and staff have taken that into consideration and modified the pilot credit language as it is now being included in LEED v4 to prohibit counting multiple stops of the same route. The following criterion has been added: Trips of a route that stop more than once within the required walk distance may only be counted once.

Hi Fred! Thanks for this update. Can you clarify if that new criterion (multiple stops of the same route within the required walk distance cannot be counted more than one) applies as of now to the pilot credit or only for LEED v4. Is this already a 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. or this just what is being discussed for v4? Also, will the language in LEED-ND also be updated for LEED-ND v4 or is that already the way the credit (SLL Credit 3) is being evaluated in LEED-ND by Reviewers?

Hi Eric, I can reply on Fred's behalf. First, this pilot credit is actually no longer active. Only those projects that registered for it before its March 1 removal can pursue the pilot credit. So, I wanted to mentioned this should you be considering the credit for your own project.

Therefore, the requirement doesn't apply to the pilot credit, as the related, v4 revision occurred after the pilot credit was removed from the Pilot Credit Library. It ultimately only applies to the v4 draft.

The related LEED-ND credit, however, is not updated with this revision, as the way in which transit stops are counted is different from the building-specific credit. In short, multiple stops from one transit route can be counted. This recognizes the fact that a single route can serve multiple areas of a neighborhood-scale project. This helpfully brings a transit stop within walking distance to as many dwelling units and non-residential building as possible.

Thanks for that clarification.

So, Chris, LEED-ND v4 will effectively continue to reward projects for adding stops to the same route, without stating spacing criteria, as it currently seems to do in LEED-ND 2009 (for SLLp1, opt. 3 and SLLc3)? I would expand Jacob's question above: should this not be adjusted for LEED-ND as well? Please discuss.

Hi Eric. LEED-ND v4 will reward projects for installing new stops, but we intentionally do not include spacing criteria because transit stop decisions (about their location, if/how they're sheltered, etc.) are mainly in the hands of transit agencies. ND v4 does reward a project for new/rehabilitated stops in NPDc7: Transit Facilities. Importantly, though, it requires collaboration with the transit agency so that new stops aren't - among other things - spaced too close together. On the whole, we feel we're appropriately relying on the existing transit agency processes to ensure that new stops are appropriately spaced.

To be sure, we're interested in learning people's experiences with new transit stops. Have you had experiences in which new stops (specifically for neighborhood-scale projects) were inappropriately spaced? Have you encountered transit agencies that don't sufficiently plan for transit stop location?

Chris,

In my case the transit agency added the stop itself, but, in my opinion, the new stop is inappropriately too close to other stops. In fact, the existing stops where already too close. So this is not specifically my experience, but this experience with a transit agency is precisely what gives me all the more reason to worry. Some transit agencies, sad to say, neglect their bus network planning priorities to leverage the most improvements they can benefit from a development OR they may not always prioritize effective transit route planning to begin with.
Think about the nature of the transit routes that can award a LEED-ND lots of points! What is going to happen is that developments in areas where the transit agency is planning ineffectively or is too accommodating to development will be unfairly rewarded relative to areas where the transit agency is really taking service outcomes seriously.
What really gets me is that a REALLY poorly functioning bus route, whose service quality is even potentially worsened by going through the LEED-ND development can potentially reward a LEED-ND project many more points than a project that has many transit service routes crossing through it with multi-service stops designed for facilitating connections.

We didn't have any additional description and we received the credit. Shouldn't be necessary if the plans are clear.

Thanks Michael, Thumbs up.

Hi all. You do not need an additional, written description. Along with the qualifying transit stops and timetables, please do aggregate the number of trips at that stop to show how they contribute to whatever threshold you're meeting.

The intent of the service in both directions requirement is to give credit for locations that are well-situated with regard to transit that serves daily needs. A site located on a transit route that is essentially a very long one-way loop is less transit-accessible than a site located near a route that provides bi-directional service. The situation that you describe is more complex as it appears that your site is in a transit-served environment, just one that does not afford bi-directional transit service on the same route/street. More information about the why bi-directional service is not provided on these transit routes would be useful to know.

In the absence of such information, it is possible to speculate that the conditions you describe would be the situation if your site is located in a district with a one-way street grid. In that condition, the return direction of a transit route that stops in front of the site may be one or more blocks away on a one-way street that goes in the opposite direction. Alone, the arithmetic of the credit will not adequately illustrate the level of transit service at such a site. However, the requried map, adequately detailed, would illustrate whether equivalent bi-directional route patterns exist in proximity to the site, which should allow consideration of whether the site qualifies for the credit and would establish how to count the routes. However, further evaluation would be necessary before the credit could be granted.

Hi Amy, are you simply able to provide us with maps for the A1 and B2 routes? No need to reveal your project location. The route information itself will help Fred and I understand the context. Thanks in advance, and great question!

Thanks for the feedback Fred. The project site is located in a city with an abundance of one-way streets as you mentioned and therefore the transit authority has designated routes running in opposite directions with their own unique route numbers.

I guess opposite directions might be too literal. Different directions could be an alternative wording maybe

The concept of being able to use transit to get to a location and to return to your starting point easily is at the heart of this credit. The TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. for this credit placed great emphasis on defining the utility of the transit system in this regard. The term "different" implies accessibility, but does not convey the "there and back again" emphasis that "opposite" does in the credit language. Will add the different term to the discussion the next time this credit is reviewed.

Since the primary metric for Option 2 is low VMTVehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): The number of miles traveled by motor vehicles in a specified period of time, such as a day or a year, by a number of motorists in absolute or per capita terms., not having reliable VMT data would make use of Option 2 problematic in this case. Option 2 is offered to encourage projects to locate in areas that are already experiencing higher than average rates of non-auto use (and by extension likely have more-developed pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit infrastructure).
The metric is essentially calibrated for North American conditions and may be difficult to quickly translate to European conditions. Option 1 would be a better choice since the transit service metric is the same in or outside the US.

You raise a very good question, one that we've considered before. At this point in developing the credit, we'll likely keep a single set of thresholds. This is far easier to implement, maintain, and (for project teams) understand, especially if project teams work in multiple location types (urban core, suburban fringe, etc.). By having a single set of thresholds, we'll appropriately reward projects that locate in areas with robust transit systems; but the single set also give a "way in" for projects with nascent transit systems. The points earned in the credit (and, subsequently, the entire LT category) therefore reflect the building's performance with respect to location and transportation. We agree that all projects - regardless of location - should be motivated to improve. But, in some instances, we simply want to appropriately reward projects for what they already have (i.e. locations surrounded by good transit). This bolsters the ability of a LEED scorecard to transparently indicate how green the building is.

I think the pilot is already tightening the requirements compared to the current system where you get full points regardless of the number of trips. The thresholds may be adjusted to reflect the good transportation availability in city centres. In our project located in a big european city we exceed the thresholds as well by far.
What I think might be more complicated is the minimum transit service on weekends. In business districts the weekend trips might be reduced by more than a third compared to weekdays and projects may get less or no points although the environmental impact of little weekend service may be small (assuming Monday to Friday workweek).

It seems to me that the weekend trips should be weighted differently due to the observation above. If a project is located in an area that has a strong public transit system when the project occupants are using the building, they shouldn't be punished for the times when the building is not occupied.

Technically, the weekday and weekend transit requirements in the Pilot Credit are weighted differently, since the weekend service requirements are lower than the weekday. That said, the level of weekend service that should be available is the subject of continuing discussion by the LP TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system.. Weekend transit service has been viewed as a measure of a good transit system and a good location - that is, one that has good accessiblity most of the time by multiple modes - and the credit reflects this by including the weekend service requirement. The points made in the above comments about weekend transit service will be seriously considered before finalizing the credit for LEED 2012.

Jason, I can tell you that project are indeed permitted to attempt both SSc3 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. and PC12, and the idea is to compare the changes with the 2009 credit to see if the changes are an improvement (better/worse, clearer/less clear, easier/harder to document).

We'd be interested to hear which version people prefer and why...

In our case, we found that our documentation for SSc3 could already address 90% of what is needed for Pilot Credit 12, because we had already taken into account the walking distance to each transit station (rather than just the shortest distance between two points on the map), and we had already calculated the schedule for SSc3 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. proof of 200+ transit rides per day, which meets the minimums listed for Pilot Credit 12

The Pilot Credit's breakdown of not only weekday but also weekend rides was new information, but in general all very similar data. It seems that in the future, these new PIlot 12 requirements might be best integrated into the existing SS Credit 3.

Thanks, Jason for this feedback. You're conveying to us precisely the information we're seeking when we pilot new credits and new versions of current credits. In this instance, we saw the refined transit requirements (multiple thresholds, weekday/weekend service, walk distance, etc.) as an evolution of the current credit. It's an improvement but not a complete departure from what project teams already know. Reading about your relative ease with the additional documentation is helpful.

We are working on a LEED NC project, and along the same lines as Jason, I found that the documentation for Pilot Credit 12- Option 1 was almost entirely completed already for SSc4.1. I too think that the Pilot credit requirements should just be integrated into SSc4.1 in LEED 2012.

Hi Samantha. Rest assured that - in actuality - this pilot credit is precisely the draft version of SSc4.1 (now LTc3) in LEED 2012. Piloting this credit is a part of a broader effort to pilot LEED 2012 credit ideas alongside with the traditional public comment periods. Collecting public comments and piloting the credit ideas is a more complete way to seek feedback before they're put to USGBC member ballot. Thanks for attempting this pilot credit!

The information required for Option 1 of the Pilot Credit is the same as for Sustainable Sites Credit 4.1 in the LEED NC rating systems. The Documentation Toolkit page for LEED NC v2.2 SSc4.1 at http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-v2.2/SSc4.1#doc-tab contains example maps, example tabular listings of transit lines and frequencies, and a sample of the online submittal form. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the information about stop locations and to calculate the walk distances to the project. If you elect to use a Google Transit map as a base, you will need to verify the stop locations and walk distances that you include in the submittal. The Resources page for SSc4.1 offers some alternatives to Google Transit that you might find helpful.

I calculated The distance in Google Maps Satelite mode. The tram stop showed up White clearly.

Me too. We have more than 1500 weekday trips and 1200 weekend trips. I think that the minimum numbers are low when you have more than 2 different lines.

The transit service thresholds were drawn from the amounts of service that would result from one line over an average 16-hour day for headways of approximately 5 minutes to 20 minutes. As such, the table numbers will be exceeded in transit-rich environments. Conversely a project located near a single route with hourly service would not meet the thresholds in the table for bus transit. The project that is located near four LRT stops appears to be calculating correctly since a single route with five-minute headways over a 16-hour day would operate approximately 200 trips.

Option 1 of the credit allows for most forms of transit to be counted towards the credit requirements. The distance requirements allow for a wider radius of influence for the higher capacity forms of transit (Bus Rapid Transit, Light, Heavy or Commuter Rail and Ferries) than for the lower capacity forms (basic Bus and Streetcar). It is not required that all qualifying service within the applicable influence areas be counted, but all can be. Be sure that the 3 bus stops are a part of that route with service in the opposite direction of any of those 70-80 bus stops. (“Trips are counted only if they are a part of a route with service in the opposite direction.” )

The overall utility of transit is reduced when the location of the transit stop for one direction of service is outside the appropriate influence area (i.e. the ¼ and ½ mile walking distance). The credit addresses this issue by only allowing transit service that has stops in both directions on a route within the appropriate influence area to be counted. If I understand your example correctly, only the route that has 3 stops would count since that is the only service that meets the requirement for service in both directions within the influence area.

Under LEED CI, only 1 point may be awarded for using this Pilot Credit program regardless of the degree to which each credit is satisfied. However, you are encouraged to document to the highest threshold possible to ensure that we've selected the appropriate thresholds and that it is reasonably simple for project teams to document credit compliance to the various thresholds provided in the credit. Please note, a project cannot achieve additional Innovation in Design or 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. points for credits attempted through the Pilot Credit library.

Thank you for your prompt answer Fred!
We registered the project for the Pilot Credit. Now we will work on the documentation about this credit.