Note: This pilot credit was closed for new registrations as of March 1, 2012.
This credit is an evolution of Alternative Transportation: Public Transit Access, a credit found in all design and construction rating systems. In its current form, the credit rewards projects for locating within ¼-mile and ½-mile of a bus stop and rail stations, respectively. It does not consider the actual walking distance from the project to the stop or station, nor does it consider the frequency of trips from the stop or station. These two omissions inspired the Location and Planning Technical Advisory Group (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.) to revise the credit accordingly; the revision now rewards projects for varying levels of transit service (instead of an all-or-nothing point structure) and requires that the distances to and from the transit stops are walking distance. The new Option 2 rewards projects for locations that don’t necessarily have transit service but still have relatively low vehicle miles traveled (by either nearby residents or workers). Both options (in addition to Option 3 in LEED for Schools) are the main avenues LP TAG has authored to inspire reduced automobile use by building occupants.
a. A map with main building entrance, transit stops by transit vehicle type, and walking routes
b. A table listing all qualifying transit stops, transit routes, and the trips at each stop, including the schedule dates from which the trip information is drawn
c. For funded or under construction transit stops, a copy of the funding commitments by the appropriate transit providers.
a. A map with MPO TAZ boundaries in relation to project boundary. This can be a special non-base map.
b. MPO name
c. TAZ number(s) containing project site
d. MPO household travel research preparation date (year)
e. Regional model run date producing the following VMT values (year)
f. Year represented in regional model run (year)
g. Annual home-based VMT per capita region average (VMT/capita/yr)
h. Annual home-based VMT per capita for project TAZ(s) (VMT/capita/yr).
a. Indication of total number of students, number of students in grades 8 and below and in grades 9 and above.
b. Indication of the number and percentage of students within a ¾-mile walk (grades 8 and below) and a 1 ½-mile walk (grades 9 and above).
c. A site vicinity plan, with scale, showing the school’s attendance boundaryThe attendance boundary is the limit used by school districts to determine what school students attend based on where they live., student population density percentage calculations, and walking path distances (based on grade level). The plan must also show dedicated walking or biking lanes that extend from the school building to at least the edge of the school property in two or more directions.
The homepage for the LEED Pilot Credit Library. The LEED Pilot Credit Library is intended to facilitate the introduction of new prerequisites and credits to LEED. This process will allow USGBC to test and refine credits through LEED 2009 project evaluations before they are sent through the balloting process for introduction into LEED.
Background for the LEED Pilot Credit Library is provided in this foundational document.
Has anyone attempted an ID credit 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. for SSc4.1 and the Pilot Credit for Reduced Automobile Dependence and if so, were you awarded both?
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 ...
The credit requirements do not clearly state that one cannot count multiple stops for the same route. This effectively gives credit for being able to chase the bus down and board at a stop within a quarter mile, but doesn’t really provide more rides. Should this be adjusted? Please discuss.
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?
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.
This question applies to Project ID 1000019331 with Pilot Credit 12: Reduced Automobile Dependence.
Option 1: Transit-Served Location requires a) A map with building entrance, bus stops and walking routes, b) A table listing all qualifying transit stops.
Our site plan shows the bus stops and walking routes and we plan to submit also public transit timetables. Will this meet the requirement or do we need a written description in addition to the site plan and timetables?
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 second bulleted requirement of Option 1 “Trips are counted only if they are a part of a route with service in opposite directions” is slightly unclear. Our project is located in the major city with an extensive transit program, and has 565 bus trips available from 5 stops within ¼ mile walk distance of our project site, however, none of these stops are served by one route offering service directly in opposite directions. An individual can get to and from work but they will have to ride separate routes, ie. Route A1 which runs North only from home to work and Route B2 which runs South only from work to home. Assuming people can return easily to their origination point, the 2 routes combined should be able to be counted as a "route with service in opposite directions".
Any feedback on whether this can qualify?
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.
USGBC will be hosting a webinar on location- and transportation-related pilot credits on Thursday, March 22, 1:00 - 2:30 ETEvapotranspiration (ET) is the loss of water by evaporation from the soil and by transpiration from plants. It is expressed in millimeters per unit of time..
For more information visit: http://usgbc.peachnewmedia.com/store/seminar/seminar.php?seminar=10516
The webinar will be registered for 1.5 hours of LEED Specific (BD+C, ID+C, O+M, HOMES, ND) GBCI hours as well as 1.5 AIA/CES LU/HSW/SD hours.
We are working on a project situated in the Czech Republic, Prague.
Is it possible to go for Option 2 and use Prague Planning Office as a metropolitan planning organization? Furthermore it would be quite difficult to find 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. for Prague environment.
Thank you for any suggestions.
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.
I completed option 1. My LEED-CI project is a confidential project, but is located in a dense urban area with well-developed public transportation. It seems too easy to earn the point in such a city. It might be difficult, but it may be fair to have some kind of baseline. Let's say, if it's in a densely developed area with good public transportation, the requirements could be little bit stricter? It is difficult to develop requirements that is challenging to projects all over the world, since LEED is US based system, but maybe New York city, San Francisco, and DC could be good samples to develop the requirements further?
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.
The requirements for Pilot Credit 12 appear to be precariously similar to the requiements for LEED 2009 CI SSc3 Option 1, 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..
There is slight variation - for example:
- the Pilot Credit distinguishes weekday and weekend minimums
- the Pilot Credit specifies 'minimum walking distance' rather than just distance
- the SSc3 requirements denote number of stops and number of rides for exemplary performance
- the Pilot Credit focuses only on aggregate number of rides, not number of stops
...though the credits are working towards the same goal, has anyone submitted both of these on one project and been approved for both SSc3 exemplary performance AND Pilot Credit 12? There are no exclusions within the Pilot stating ineligibility for projects seeking SSc3 Exemplary Performance, but I'm curious if anyone has successfully submitted both within one project.
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!
We are working on LEED CI project and participating in this pilot credit, which we given the city centre location that we are in would be easily achieved. I wondered what evidecne would be required to show distance and trips if this was a real credit - we have used Google Maps to calcualte walking distances, but the bus stops are not marked in exactly the right places on there so distances are a inaccurate.
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.
We're also attempting option 1. The project is located in a fairly dense area with a total of 4 different light rail stops within a 1/2 mile walking distance. After a preliminary count, the total number of light rail trips from those 4 stops reaches over 900 weekday trips (counting both directions and before adding bus trips). This amount seems high compared to the table which ranges from 60 -132 weekday trips. Is it possible we are calculating it incorrectly? Or are these minimum numbers in the table under consideration?
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.
Hello, I am working on a LEED CI Project and I saw that it seems feasible to follow Option-1 “Transit-Served Location” for the project thanks to the location of the building.
Before registering for the Pilot Program I would ask you some questions:
a. Is it ok if I take into account only buses or do I have to take into account other transit types?
b. What is intended as “trips are counted only if they are part of a route with service in opposite direction”? Is it correct if I mean that we should only take into account for buses that have stops in two opposite directions in a ¼ mile walk distance or may I have to take into account only one bus that stops only in one direction in a ¼ mile walk distance but is part of a route with service in opposite direction?
I try with an example: We have 4 buses that stop in a ¼ mile walk distance with an average of 70-80 stops per day in only direction (but are not part of a route) and only 1 bus that have 3 stops in a ¼ mile walk distance (average of 100 stops at each stop in one direction) that have service in opposite direction. Do we have to take into account all these 4+1 buses? Or only 1 bus at 3 stops?
c. is it possible to achieve only one point under this credit for Innovation in Design even if, for example, I have more than 100 weekday trips and 65 weekend trips?
Thank you in advance!
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.
Hi LEEDusers -
The idea behind pilot credits is to get feedback from project team members on the concepts we're testing so that USGBC can learn from your experience and make these credits better
Details on what the LEED pilot credit library is and how to use it.
Director, Department of Transportation
City of Pasadena, CA
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.