This credit uses intersection density as a proxy for the level of community connectivity, transit accessibility and walkability.
Intersection density corresponds closely to block size: the greater the intersection density, the smaller the blocks. Small blocks contribute to neighborhood walkability.
In recent years, a growing body of research has confirmed that intersection density is one of the most important factors for encouraging pedestrian travel. Intersection density is also associated with fewer vehicle miles traveled, reduced risk of fatalities and serious injuries from auto crashes, faster emergency response, and, in conjunction with complementary urban design, reduced incidence of burglary.
PC8 is open via IDc1, Path 3 to all projects using these LEED rating systems: LEED for Homes, and Homes Mid-Rise.
To gain credit, submit an aerial map of the project and surrounding area. Create a circle with a ¼ mile radius, and mark each intersection within that radius with the following caveats:
Credit is earned for projects with at least 60 intersections within a ¼ mile radius
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
To promote projects that are well connected to the community at large. To encourage development within existing communities that minimizes vehicle miles traveled. To improve public health by encouraging daily physical activity.
Locate the project in an area of high intersection density. High intersection density is defined as an area with existing streets and sidewalks with a density of at least 90 intersections per square mile. Water bodies and publicly owned parks are not included in the calculation
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.
It appears that our project will qualify for this point, and I do believe that the spirit of the credit positively reinforces the walkability of our neighborhood site as the increased intersections and thus smaller block sizes allow for more direct access to community resources.
I agree with comments made regarding the intent of the credit including pedestrian access. It seems to me that this is where the Street Network Pilot Credit can distinguish itself from other Locations and Linkages credits in the LEED for Homes rating system. The credit requirements should include that all roads and intersections included in the calculation have provisions for safe pedestrian access. Additionally, I wonder if it would make sense to have different thresholds for the credit depending on type of project location, such as urban, suburban and rural to allow for context-specific thresholds.
I agree with Jon Jensen's comment above that a 4-way intersection with one leg that leads to a cul-de-sac is not materially different in terms of connectedness to a 3-way intersection where all three directions lead to through-streets.
Another suggestion - although it would be more difficult to document, I think the credit should be amended to say that the qualifying interections should provide both street and sidewalk connectivity. I think there will be cases discovered where a well-connected street grid does not provide nearly as many sidewalks for pedestrian connections as it provides roads for cars, bicycles and buses.
Is it safe too presume that the true spirit of the credit should include pedestrian access?
Just to be clear--this is NO LONGER available to pursue as an ID Credit under LEED-NC v2009??
Brooks, that is correct. I'm not sure this credit was ever available outside of LEED for Homes, though. See the chart of credit availability here.
Tristan--As always, very helpful--thanks very much!
Tristan, for what it's worth, it was originally available at least for the new construction rating systems. We had registered for and completed the requirements for a CI 2009 project.
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.
I'm not sure why this point is necessary, to be completely honest. LEED already has community connectivity points to show neighborhood walkability, mass transit points to further show a minimized necessity for vehicles, and an open space point that better represents opportunities for physical activity.
Is this point intended to combine them all into one? If so, I feel it is a huge failure. I can't believe how difficult this credit was to achieve in downtown Newark, but I guess when you are 2 blocks from a river, a baseball stadium and a train station this credit is going to be a problem.
The suburb that I grew up in, however, would easily get this point. Just don't expect the people that live there to walk anywhere.
I really like this credit, and I think it shows a value to choosing a home locations that was otherwise unnoticed.
I do, however, have some questions about intersections, and some options that may not have been considered. First off, I think there will be some resistance from homes located in cul-de-sacs. That intersection will prove to be quite useful as a connection to the community (and one that cannot be avoided). Secondly, what is to be said about public spaces in general, such as a school or park. Parks are very useful in connecting individuals to areas in the community, and many schools are similar. If a home is next to a rather large park, they will get credit for access to open space very easily, but you can almost guarantee that this credit will not be available. I've seen this problem with a few projects that I'm connected with, and it's unfortunate that the point is not satisfied. Do others have this same problem?
Nate, I think both of your questions are germane to the intent of the credit. The background info for the credit states, in part:
"This credit uses intersection density as a proxy for the level of community connectivity, transit accessibility and walkability. Intersection density corresponds closely to block size: ... Small blocks contribute to neighborhood walkability. In recent years, a growing body of research has confirmed that intersection density is one of the most important factors for encouraging pedestrian travel."
A cul-de-sac by definition is a dead-end and thus does not provide increased connectivity, which is why they don't count it.
As you note, proximity to open space is valuable and rewarded under LEED. However, it can easily be at odds with increased connectivity and resultant walkability, reduced 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., etc. A large park is great for recreational walking, but may not be very conducive to "transportation" walking, plus it removes its area from potential sites for services. Put another way, if a neighborhood's density supports 10 services in a given 1/4-mile radius, then a home for which half of its 1/4-mile-radius circle overlaps a park will only have access to 5 services (or 6, counting the park).
We were on the cusp of Gold level until our review came back with several points deducted from our energy model. Our Green Rater suggested that we look into the Pilot Credit program and felt confident that we may qualify for several additional points. Within the Pilot Credit Library, we found that several aspects of our project had naturally conformed to the LEED mission of sustainability, accessibility and energy conservation. In particular; that our project is located in an existing densely populated neighborhood of an older Mid-West industrial city qualified us to receive one (1) point for PC 9. There exists many community resources within walking distance of the building and the original fabric of the neighborhood still supports many of the original mom & pop corner stores.
I find this point very useful in the redevelopment of existing buildings in older inner-city neighborhoods and even densely developed smaller towns. The idea is to promote sustainability through reinforcing the value of living in a walkable community.
Albert - we are completing the certification for a project which seems very similar to yours (over-the-cusp of Gold with this credit), just north of Center City in an older Northeastern City (Philly) with access to many amenities.
I did find a local anomaly within our 1/4 radius of the site which was, I believe a mid-20th Century development, that utilized cul-de-sacs. This significantly lowered the number of total intersections from what probably would have been close to 90 to closer to 70.
Most of Philadelphia probably wouldn't have a very hard time meeting the criteria for this point but, having seen the effects of the cul-de-sac design in this area, I can see how it would make this credit difficult. This small cul-de-sac development is still well situated for easy access to public transportation as well as other walkable amenities.
In my opinion, it's an easy credit for projects within an existing infrastructure of older cities but would obviously cause havoc trying to meet this in less dense, suburban town or development.
We had registered our CI project for PC9 prior to the change to the credit that limited it to Homes projects. We just received our certification review, and the reviewer acknowledged we had done all the submittal and process requirements. However, the reviewer states that because the project is not located in an area that complies with the minimum intersections requirement, the ID credit is denied; instead, we "may apply for an alternative ID credit".
It is clear from the PC Library documentation that only alternative compliance path PCs must meet the technical requirements in order to earn the point; for other PCs, the project needs to comply only with the documentation and comment processes. After all, there's not a lot of incentive for a project to go through the extra effort of documenting, participating on LEEDUser and providing feedback if credit non-compliance means you won't get a point!
We are going to re-submit pointing out the PC Library documentation. Has anyone else run into this with reviewers?
Our project is registered as a LEED-CI v2.0 and we are pursuing Pilot Credit 9.
Hi, I am trying to apply this credit to one of my project. The credit requirement states that "Publicly accessible alleys may be counted" as intersections. For the alleys connecting two streets, there are two entrances, I would like to know whether the two entrances connecting two streets would be counted as 2 intersections?
The project site I am dealing with has a varied topography (outside Pittsburgh, PA), and I believe the geographic limitations of the site and surroundings made it difficult to meet the required threshold. Even though the project is located in a centralized location in a dense, well-established community, we barely met the threshold of 60 intersections. The street grids of the area follow the topography and there are limited connections among the different grids, only where the topography allows. I don't know if there is an effective way to account for sites on or near difficult topography, but it certainly could be an obstacle for some locations.
Like others, there is a large municipal park adjacent to my project site, and that affected our intersection count as well.
We attempted this pilot credit on several of the projects we are working on and were surprised to find that many that are located in the heart of downtown areas do not meet the requirement. Sixty intersections is a difficult requirement to meet when a building is located in a city that is near a lake or ocean if the water body falls within the 1/4 mile radius. It is also difficult to meet when the building is located near an expressway, since the expressway consumes too much area needed to maintain the intersection count.
Hi Terry. Thanks for this feedback. We've heard similar things from other project, particularly the issue with bodies of water and open spaces hurting the intersection count. For expressways (and also train tracks), i believe that their negative impact of the intersection count is intentional, because they make walkability and access to services by foot, bike, or even bus more difficult, making for a sort of walkability wasteland. This is discussed a bit more in the first few threads of this forum. .
Others with location & planning experience have opinions on this?
I had similar concerns on this point. Our project was lucky in that were were located downtown, but our radius also overlapped with a university that had an extensive system of walking paths. If our project site had been shifted to the west by 1/4 mile it ould have been right in the middle of downtown which is very pedestrian friendly, but not been able to achieve 60 intersections.
Can you please tell me why this pilot credit is no longer available to EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. projects as of 11/1?
On 11/8/2010, we posted new versions of several pilot credits, and 30 brand new pilot credits in conjunction with the LEED Rating System Update, which is now available for public comment. In the public comment documents, this version of the open & connected community credit is only available to residential (LEED for Homes and Homes Mid-Rise) projects. To align with the public comment document, the applicable rating systems have been revised.
The new credit includes a blue box listing all of the changes made from the previous version: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8220.
While this credit was open to EBO&M projects, we received several comments from project teams stating that it should not be applicable to EBO&M projects, so we took that into consideration as well.
EBO&M, ID&C and BD&C projects that registered for the pilot credit prior to 11/08/2010 may continue using the pilot credit on their projects, but it is no longer open to new registrations under EBO&M, ID&C and BD&C.
I am not sure sure how to count the intersection.
Our building is located in a high density neighborhood of Manhattan. How many intersections represent a crossroad? One or four? If it is one, 80 seems like impossible to reach. A graphical example in the description of the credit would be really helpful.
The LEED Neighborhood Development rating system has more information, including graphics.
The new version of Credit 9 http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8220 now includes the LEED ND submittal example. Note that the credit is now only available to LEED for Homes & Homes Mid-Rise projects but the example can be used as guidance for all project that registered prior to 11/8.
I would suggest that intersections that only serve on-/off-ramps for controlled-access highways also be excluded from being counted for this credit.
The pilot credit instructions say: "3. Submit feedback survey; supply PDF of your survey/confirmation of completion with credit documentation."
When I completed the survey, it told me to record the date for verification. There was no option to create a PDF or otherwise print or save the survey.
Then, on LEED Online, IDc1.x, after selecting "pursuing a LEED pilot credit," the site asks for a "completed pilot credit documentation form." I can't find anything that tells me what that form is. Also, there is no other 'upload' blank (for the aerial map to document the credit). (Perhaps the map is supposed to be packaged with the credit documentation form?)
Am I missing something? Or are there some kinks still to be worked out.
This is a good question, relevant to all pilot credits.
Within a 1-2 days of completing the pilot credit survey, you will receive a confirmation email, which will include your responses to the survey questions. Submit this email confirmation as part of your LEED Online submittal.
The LEED Online ID credit will be update in the next month or so to include clearer language. There is no pilot credit documentation form. To earn pilot credit, you should submit the following pieces of documentation:
- confirmation email from registration
- confirmation email from survey completion
- credit specific documentation (as outlined in the pilot credit file)
participation in LEEDuser is also required.
It would also be helpful if there was a way to indicate in the pilot credit application / survey / etc. if someone other than the project administrator is documenting the pilot credit, participating in LEEDUser, etc. (I'm handling the pilot credit, but the Project Administrator receives all the emails.) I made a note in the survey that LEEDUser participation was under my name, not the Project Administrator's. Hopefully that will get tracked through by a reviewer.
In reviewing the survey confirmation email, I see that my longer responses got cut off at 256 characters. Will the reviewer have access to the actual survey response? Or is my feedback gone? (There was nothing on the survey form to suggest that there is a length limit.)
Thanks for this feedback. The reviewer will have access to your complete survey information, the cut off is only in the confirmation email, not in the actual survey.
We will add an additional field for "primary contact email address". Thanks for the input.
I agree with Michael that additional clarity on the actual submittal process would be extremely helpful. Per Batya's earlier response, the process is to "submit the following pieces of documentation:
- confirmation email from registration
- confirmation email from survey completion
- credit specific documentation (as outlined in the pilot credit file)
Participation in LEEDuser is also required."
I have completed the survey and am waiting for my confirmation email. But then what - where do I send the registration and survey completion confirmation emails and my maps demonstrating compliance? I haven't used LEED Online because everything so far (for all of the "regular" credits) has been submitted by my LEED for Homes provider, Steven Winter Associates. Is LEED Online the only way to submit documentation for Pilot credits?
This is an important issue for Homes projects. For LEED for Homes projects, the submittals are the same, but they should go through your standard LEED for Homes process (through the Green Rater to your LEED for Homes Provider). The pilot credit submittal will then be reviewed just as other project documentation and Innovation credit are currently, between the Provider and a reviewer, rather than in LEED Online..
Thanks for the clarification and your rapid response, Batya! This helps a lot.
Word of warning on the submittal. I recently submitted two Pilot Credits with the survey confirmation email, which was mostly blank due to the 256 character limit. My review came back indicating I did not provide answers to the additional questions associated with the Pilot Credits. Thus, I am not sure if the reviewers do actually have access to the complete survey information.
At this point, I've typed out the entire survey into word and will submit that and the explaination about the survey confirmation email. Hopefully, this works because I'm not sure what else I could do.
i have few LEED project on hand and would like to attempt this credit for all my projects . Do i need to register all these projects into "Pilot Credit Library Project Registration Form" ?
Yes, this is the link to register:
is there a deadline for the registration of project on pilot credit?
There is not a deadline currently posted.
Our site (Prague, Czech republic) is surrounded by many internal building passageways and retail corridors that connect block-to-block through the buildings, often times connecting more than one building with publicly accessible internal courtyards. The majority of these are closed to the public for some period during the night (12-6am) but are publicly accessible during other times.
Our building in fact is designed to include such a link if the future redevelopment of adjacent buildings allows.
Would these fit within the intent of the all weather pathways?
This credit was based on language from LEED-ND. To determine the intent we check with LJ Aurbach from the Location and Planning Technical Advisory Group:
"The largest benefits of small blocks and well-connected street layouts appear when pedestrian routes are public and at ground level. This allows pedestrian traffic to contribute to the liveliness, civic activity, and commercial success of streets, alleys, passages, etc. Pedestrian routes that are grade separated from the street tend to suck the life away from streets, and also tend to enforce social class segregation in the daily life of an urban place. Overhead pedestrian bridges, tubes, etc. are often suboptimal responses to high-speed, high-volume traffic arterials, and can also be eyesores that block views and sunshine.
For these reasons, the LEED-ND definition of streets specifies that they must be publicly accessible at all times, and they must be "addressable." Publicly accessible means that streets are not gated and are not located within gated areas. "Addressable" means that streets are (or can be) lined by lots with postal addresses -- i.e., no parking lots, driveways, access ramps, and so on."
So the answer is, the partially gated pathways would not count towards your intersection count, though this is not clear from the current pilot credit. When you submit for the pilot credit, please provide feedback on how to improve the credit language, and perhaps more information on how these building to building connections improve the openness of the community in Prague (in order to meet the intent of the credit). This information will help us to improve the credit language for the future.
OK, well this brings up another question.
Our site is also adjacent to several metro stations. These stations provide below grade links (in addition to those on the surface) to allow more direct, traffic-free, and weather-protected pedestrian movement across the area.
These underground links are vestibules of the metro stations, so they are publicly accessible 24hrs a day and outside of the paid zone of the metro. They also provide "addressable" space that is leased to tenants for commercial space. The vestibule closest to our project for example, includes a full service grocery, a bakery, a cafe, a sports betting office, a newsstand or two, and a public transit office, among other things. This subterranean space is quite busy all year long, but especially during bad weather and throughout our cold winters. Not only transit users utilize this highly trafficked 'short-cut' space, which is quite well used even in the late night hours.
Also due to the highly urban nature of the area, these spaces appear not to diminish traffic on the surface, nor segregate users.
Consequently, based on these assumptions, I would include these public metro vestibule connections in our intersection totals.
I would recommend differentiating between the intersections on these various levels (above, below and street level) when you submit your credit documentation, so that reviewers are able to see how the different systems impact the connectivity of the site. I know similar underground systems exist in other cities, so they should be evaluated and more clearly addressed in the credit language during the next revision.
I've done some searching, but can't find a definition of "All Weather Pathways". A project I'm working on is adjacent to a campus with numerous meandering and crossing walking paths (open to the public, not gated). They are not covered, but the project is in a very temperate climate. Do these count as all weather?
My project is situated near Taipei 101 and hence its located in a proper urban area. so we have a claimed a point 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. under "Development density and community connectivity. now I am trying to score a point under pilot credit 9: open and connected community. Please advice if that will be acceptable by GBCI? Because the intent of both seems to be almost the same.
Yes, you can apply for both credits.
See Batya's comment above.
Is PC9 seen as an additional compliance path for SSc2 Development Density and Community Connectivity, or a separate credit?
I did a test count of intersections for a project that should be able to achieve CI SSc2, Community Connectivity. The project is located in Portland, OR, with intersections on 260' centers, so I figured if you can get it anywhere, it would be here.
I discovered, though, that it falls just short (n = 54), because the riverfront and railroad tracks are about an 1/8 mile to the west, and an interstate is an 1/8 mile to the north/northwest. However, the 260' grid is uninterrupted to the northeast, east and south well beyond the 1/4-mile radius: shifting the center of the radius just one block diagonally to the southeast would up the intersection count to 67.
It seems that there could be room for an alternate option that would correct for sites that are in a highly open and connected community, but near geographic barriers on one side: perhaps an option for a given number of intersections within a 1/2-mile radius, with some reduced minimum within the 1/4-mile radius.
At the moment, this credit is seen as being in addition to SSc2, rather than an alternative compliance path. A project team may earn SSc2 and still earn an ID point for this pilot credit.
What we're really looking to test is whether the intersection count (which is a relatively simple submittal) can serve as a good stand-in for more complex credit requirements, while meeting a similar connectivity intent.
We have started to see that geographic barriers like railroad tracks, bodies of water, and designated open spaces can be a barrier to achievement, and your suggestion of offering various radius options sounds like a good solution, though some of these features really do hamper the connectivity of a site to its surroundings (especially in the case of railroad tracks). What do others think?
On a related note for all participating projects, please do submit your your findings even if you do not meet the threshold to earn this credit. Because it is a pilot credit, your feedback on improving the credit is even more valuable than meeting the threshold. Perhaps include some examples of how your project would fare if the radius were expanded to 1/2 mile (with a corresponding increase in number of intersections) or even 1 mile to offset the inaccessible areas.
Our project site is in a dense urban location in San Diego but there are some parks and cul-de-sacs that made it a little tricky. However, we did end up meeting the minimum requirements. While I can see extending the radius to a 1/2 mile, I think a mile seems pretty extensive.
Along the lines that Batya suggested, I would agree that any expansion of the radius should be accompanied by an increas in the number of intersections -- and potentially a proportionally larger increase, so that it's about a secondary compliance path, not just an easier threshold.
In my feedback survey on the pilot credit, I suggested a few other 'Option 2' compliance paths, such as:
1. Being allowed to count any intersection that can be reached in +/- 1750' walk (which is based on an estimated distance to a compliant intersection w/in the 1/4-mile radius, but at the diagonal on a square grid).
2. Being allowed to shift the center of the circle a small distance (250'? 300'?) to correct for projects that are slightly too close to barriers, but otherwise well-connected.
3. Being allowed to center the 1/4-mile radius anywhere that includes the entire project site within the circle, but requiring an increased threshold (70 or 75?) to attain one point.
Being able to shift the center of the 1/4-mile circle some limited distance, while maintaining the number of required intersections at 60, seems like it would be a good method of getting a "clean" representative sample of a community's connectivity when there are pedestrian obstacles (highways, railroad tracks, open spaces/parks) present. Increasing the radius much beyond 1/4 mile starts to get outside the limit of walkability, at least in a suburban context (unfortunately!).
My project is in a dense, highly-connected suburb of Boston (Newton, MA). We meet the requirements to achieve 3 points for LL5.3 - Outstanding Community Resources / Transit, so the neighborhood should certainly be considered highly connected. With the 1/4-mile circle centered on the site, however, we just barely meet the 60-interesection requirement for PC9. Shifting the circle 500' north to avoid railroad tracks and a large park yields an intersection count of 67. The neighborhood has quite a few cul-de-sacs, which limits our total - and, in this case, is a good proxy for connectivity.
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 (so that you can make your buildings better, so that we can learn from that, so that we can make LEED better, so that you can make your buildings better...).
We can't do it without you so get on with it already.
Spread the word to friends and colleagues and if we run in to each other at Greenbuild, I'll buy you a beer!
Where can I find more information on the definition of all weather pathways? Thanks.
Peter, are there any particular situations you're wondering about?
I think that in terms of documenting this as a pilot credit, you can make your own assumptions, to some extent.
Project is in San Diego and is very near two large public campuses. They have concrete and brick pathways allowing pedestrian access crisscrossing the large campus blocks. For this project, I'd need those intersections to count to get the 60. It seems appropriate to me to count them, as they do contribute greatly to connectivity and community access.
Here's a link to the graphic:
It will be interesting to see how USGBC treats campus sidewalks/pathways. In many cases they clearly function as pedestrian streets, but they sometimes also serve as redundant shortcuts that don't really indicate increased connectivity. Also, when are or are they not 'addressable' (per LEED ND -- see Batya Metalitz's 09.28.10 post below)?
More generally, looking at your graphic and google maps of the area, it looks like you have marked some intersections that appear to be only sidewalks to access a building whose entrance is set back from the street (e.g. the two red-roofed buildings at the bend in Park Blvd; the diagonal driveway at the condo at 7th & Ash), rather than ROW intersections. Also, it looks like you've marked at least one that is two freeway ramps merging.
So I guess I'm not clear. We get the ID point for attempting the credit and providing feedback? or getting to 60 intersections? I agree some of the ones I've marked probably don't meet the intent of the credit. If the campus pathways count, we could probably pick up a few more there, or shift the radius around the rectangular site to maximize intersection count. I'm also limited by what I can see on Google Earth, there may be alleyways that are not counted.
Thanks for the immediate and direct feedback!
I am working on a campus condition as well and have found it very difficult to document side walk connections based on google maps do to the tree canopy. In some ways, I have found this credit to be a little counter to the Open Space credit, because a great open space is something will not have street intersections cutting through it.
Thanks for the comments. You're not bound to using google maps, so if none of the view types work (satellite or map view maybe?), you can use some other type of map or drawing of the area. Please let us know how this goes.
The "counter to open space" comment is one we've received several times now, see the conversation below. It seems the best approach is to essentially dilute the impact of a nearby open space by expanding the radius and increasing the number of required intersections somewhat. This doesn't solve the issue of the conflicting intents, but it does help to manage the problem. Other alternative recommendations?
The new pilot guidance helped our project significantly. Under the new language, the radius can be drawn from the site boundary, rather than just one circle from the middle. Here's our revised diagram, submitted for USGBC review last week.
Comments welcome! Thanks.
The Pilot credit 29 will help my project get the extra points we need for certification. The LEED certification process should use more emphasis on the location of the project as it pertains to the commercial areas near the project.
I have several projects that are pursuing PC 9 and will easily qualify. In reviewing their submittals however, I've noticed one idiosyncrasy that I'm hoping folks here can either identify as a flaw in the current credit wording, or a misunderstanding on my part: "Intersections with culs-de-sac are not counted." would seem to indicate that any intersection where one option is a cul-de-sac does not count. Wouldn't a four (or more) way intersection that includes a cul-de-sac as one option be equally advantageous to a three way intersection with no cul-de-sac? If I"m correct, I suggest the above quote be changed to "Three way intersections with culs-de-sac are not counted." Thanks
Jon, I would agree with your interpretation, but I don't have any specific experience to suggest how USGBC would respond. Perhaps a suggested language change would be something like "streets that lead only to a cul-de-sac or other dead-end shall not be considered in determining intersections to be counted.
I think to combat the "counter to open space" issue, there could be a percentage reduction in the requirement. Something like if the area surrounding the project is 40% water, the number of intersections could be reduced 30-40%.
Two responses to the Jons:
Jon Jensen - that's a great suggestion. It currently is assumed that this is the case, but we can be more clear. We updated the language to clarify that it's 'intersections leading only to a dead end or cul-de-sac'.
Jon Texter - the credit language allows project teams to ignore parks and water bodies, so project team's aren't penalized by being near them. We look at intersection density, rather than total number of intersections. So yes, the total number of intersections needed will be reduced by the same percentage as the percentage of park area within 1/4 mile of the project boundary. This will be made abundantly clear by the use of examples in the Reference Guide.
I think that the "intersection" requirement should be amended to include BOTH streets for cars, buses and bicycles and sidewalks.
I feel there should be a correlation between the intersection count and available community resources. Lots of intersections doesn't necessarily reflect on its connection to the community. Suburban and rural areas won't easily qualify for this credit, yet these areas might actually be connected better to community resources then some urban areas.
Details on what the LEED pilot credit library is and how to use it.
Manager, LEED Technical Development
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.