Log in
LEED v2009
Commercial Interiors
Sustainable Sites
Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms

LEED CREDIT

CI-2009 SSc3.2: Alternative transportation - bicycle storage and changing rooms 2 points

See all forum discussions about this credit »

Credit achievement rate

XX%

Upgrade to LEEDuser Premium to see how many projects achieved this credit. Try it free »

LEEDuser expert

Marilyn Specht

Integral group
Principal, US Sustainability Consulting Lead

LEEDuser’s viewpoint

Frank advice from LEED experts

LEED is changing all the time, and every project is unique. Even seasoned professionals can miss a critical detail and lose a credit or even a prerequisite at the last minute. Our expert advice guides our LEEDuser Premium members and saves you valuable time.

Credit language

USGBC logo

© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

Requirements

Provide secure bicycle racks and/or storage within 200 yards (200 meters) of a main building entrance for 5% or more of tenant occupants (measured at peak periods).

Provide shower and changing facilities in the building, or within 200 yards (200 meters) of a building entrance, for 0.5% of full-time equivalent (FTE) occupants.

See all forum discussions about this credit »

What does it cost?

Cost estimates for this credit

On each BD+C v4 credit, LEEDuser offers the wisdom of a team of architects, engineers, cost estimators, and LEED experts with hundreds of LEED projects between then. They analyzed the sustainable design strategies associated with each LEED credit, but also to assign actual costs to those strategies.

Our tab contains overall cost guidance, notes on what “soft costs” to expect, and a strategy-by-strategy breakdown of what to consider and what it might cost, in percentage premiums, actual costs, or both.

This information is also available in a full PDF download in The Cost of LEED v4 report.

Learn more about The Cost of LEED v4 »

Frequently asked questions

Do I round up or down? What if the calculations show that I need 0.5 showers?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Our building is mostly residential. Must we provide showers and changing rooms for the nonresidential portion?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Does LEED have any requirements on spacing or the type of bike racks used? What about security?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Are there specific requirements for the changing rooms, such as size?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Based on my FTE calculations, I am only required to provide 1 shower to meet this requirement. Since both males and females will have access to this one shower, and it will be in a single room, does this satisfy the credit requirements? Can I use an existing shower in a handicapped-accessible bathroom?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Do bike racks have to be within the LEED project boundary?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

My project type serves visitors who can reasonably be expected to not be using bikes, e.g. hotel, airport, assisted living facility. Can I exclude them from bike rack requirements?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Is a general storage room that is accessible to residents acceptable for covered bike storage?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

See all forum discussions about this credit »

Addenda

1/8/2010Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Insert the term "Tenant space" in alphabetical order with the accompanying text "Tenant space is the area within the LEED project boundary. For more information on what can and must be in the LEED project boundary see the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) and LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance. Note: tenant space is the same as project space."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
10/24/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Establishment of baseline FTE for a Transient Facility:This Washington, DC Major League Ballpark experiences a transient population roughly 81 times per year on "event" days only (a ballgame). The project team developed a calculation to determine the number of Full Time Equivalents that would become the baseline for the bicycle racks and showering facilities required. The team originally took the full time building population (250 occupants at 8 hours per day/total person hours per day/260 annual days of occupancy/total person hours per year) and a part-time population count based on the number of fans that would be attending an event in equivalent hours (35,000 avg. game attendance at 4 hours per day/total person hours per day/81 annual days of occupancy/total person hours per year) for a total FTE of 5702 occupants.Bicycle Racks Calculation:With a baseline FTE of 5702, the total number of bike racks required to satisfy the credit requirements are: FTE = 5702 * 5% = 286 bike racks required.Original Solution:In order to support bicycle transportation as a viable means of accessing the Ballpark, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) is donating 286 bicycle storage racks which will be located around the ballpark site, convenient to multiple points of entry (within 200 yards). Secure bicycle storage is provided in the garage for full time employees. The Ballpark team submitted documentation to this effect on July 30, 2007. In addition to 286 racks on site, DDOT will be installing racks on surrounding blocks, however the exact number and location is not determined at this time. The Ballpark team felt this met the intent of the credit by supporting the use of bicycle transportation to and from the Ballpark, however the credit was denied in the design phase review (with request for clarification).Design Phase Review Response:"The LEED Submittal Template has been provided claiming that the project has provided bicycle storage and shower facilities for 5% of the FTE building occupants. For this credit, the peak number of transient occupants should be included in the FTE occupant count. For a ballpark, transient occupants will be at the stadium at the same time, so the peak occupancy should not assume a diversity factor, but should include all guests and staff that are likely to be at a ballpark during a sold-out game.TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please provide revised FTE occupancy calculations that account for transient visitors at peak occupancy. The calculations should include the peak number of transient visitors expected to visit the building at any given time."Revised Calculation:If we add the peak attendance of 41,000 (sold out game) plus 250 FTE, the credit would require 2,064 bicycle storage spaces. According to the Executive Director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA), this exceeds the bicycle storage capacity at Amsterdam Central Station and would constitute about a linear mile of bicycles. The WABA has over 7,000 members, yet the Executive Director remarked that providing nearly 300 storage spaces is already probably in excess of need, let alone over 2,000.The Ballpark team also finds 2,064 permanent storage spaces to be excessive for numerous reasons:The LEED Rating System (and this credit) was originally developed to address commercial office buildings. Whether by bicycle, private car or public transit, both FTE and Transient populations typically arrive at buildings of this type individually rather than in groups (unless they are carpooling, which is addressed by another credit). Ball games tend to be social events, primarily attended by groups of people rather than by individuals. The Ballpark project has already been approved for an exemplary performance ID credit under Transportation Management Plan for its plentiful access to public transportation and for not providing public parking.While the Ballpark team does anticipate some individual attendance at games (a portion of which may arrive by bicycle), there is no evidence to support the expectation of anywhere close to 2,000 cycling attendees. Indeed, the San Francisco Giants stadium provides a bicycle valet for 150 bicycles and is only currently storing up to 125 bicycles on game days.The Ballpark team feels providing an excessive amount of permanent storage at this time is contrary to the general underlying environmental intent of the credit. The production of these racks will require the use of materials - both raw and recycled - in addition to the energy that will be used to manufacture and transport the racks. If the San Francisco stadium is any indication, only about 6% of the 2,064 racks would be used.2,064 racks will also require a large amount of land to be set aside for this use, and on a compact urban infill site the Ballpark team does not feel providing racks in large excess of demand constitutes the highest and best use of the land.An alternative solution has been developed, one the Ballpark team feels bridges the gap between providing permanent storage capacity for 2,064 bicycles and our original proposal of 286.Alternative Solution:The Ballpark team proposes to continue with installation of 286 permanent bicycle storage racks and to provide an additional bicycle valet service on game days. This is a more flexible and environmentally sensitive solution to permanent racks, and can be quickly responsive to growing demand.We propose to model our Ballpark bicycle storage capacity both on that of the San Francisco stadium and on the LEED-EB Rating System. In addition to 286 storage spaces, the Ballpark will offer valet service initially for up to 150 bicycles. The WABA has agreed to provide valet service. The Ballpark owners have agreed to offer \'ride-to-the-game day\' promotions that will encourage the use of bicycle transportation through reduced price game tickets on certain dates. At special events such as this, the bicycle valet capacity would be increased beyond 150 to anticipate larger demand.The peak demand will be monitored and valet service capacity will be increased every season that there is an increase in peak usage so that the bicycle storage capacity is maintained at 125% of the peak demand for bicycle parking until a maximum bike storage capacity of 5% of the peak building users is reached (or 2,064).ConclusionThe unique nature of this project type requires a creative approach to this credit. We feel that by committing to providing a combination of permanent storage and a storage service that will enable Ballpark employees and visitors to bicycle to work and games, we are meeting the intent to reduce pollution and landscape development impacts from automobile use.

Ruling:

Given the particular nature of this project, the proposed Alternative Solution does meet the credit intent as it allows for capacity growth based on peak demand. This approach is applicable to stadiums and special event facilities only. Along with required credit documentation, please provide documentation demonstrating an ongoing bicycle valet service program (a signed contract for the service is acceptable) which includes stipulation for increased growth based on demand up to 2,064 bicycles.Please also provide a narrative which details how demand will be monitored and capacity increased over time, along with a description of how and where bicycle storage sufficient to accommodate up to 2,064 bicycles will be provided should there be that level of demand.Note that showers and changing facilities must be made available to all full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/23/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a Senior Assisted Living Facility registered under the LEED NC 2.2 rating system. In addition to the residential component it includes a restaurant, shop and dining room and will be staffed 24 hours a day with a maximum of 22 staff FTE occupants per shift. We are requesting a ruling excluding the requirement to provide covered bike racks for the residential occupants, whom are unable to bike due to physical limitations and/or health problems. Due to the specific characteristics of the residential population, the project team feels that it is impractical to provide covered bike storage for 15% of the residents, as calculated for SSc4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bike Storage and Changing Rooms. Previous CIR rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 9/14/2006 set a precedence to exclude certain populations from the bicycle storage requirements based upon the practicality of that population to take advantage of the bicycle storage. LEED for Schools also addresses the issue of physical inability and/or safety by limiting the bike rack requirement to students above third grade. To meet the intent of this credit we are proposing that we satisfy the requirements to serve the employees of the project and provide bicycle storage for 5% of the FTE and showers for 0.5% of the FTE and exclude the residential population from the calculation for bicycle storage.

Ruling:

The CIR is requesting that their project be exempted from the requirement for covered bicycle racks for 15% of residents. This request is based on the physical limitations of the residents at this senior assisted living facility and the assumption that they will not be riding bicycles with any regularity. The project has proposed to meet the credit by providing bicycle racks for 5% of the staff FTE, and showers for .5% of the staff FTE, with the residents entirely excluded from the calculations. Based on previous CIRs, especially the ruling dated 12/2/07 under SSc4.4, physically incapacitated residents can be excluded from credit calculations determining bicycle racks. However, in order for the credit requirements to be satisfied, the bicycle racks must be sized to accommodate 5% of both the FTE staff, and the peak transient occupancy including visitors. The proposal to size the showers for 0.5% of the FTE staff is appropriate for credit compliance. Please note that employee shower facilities must be separate from resident shower facilities. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
6/22/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project scope is unique in that the building owner is currently seeking certification under LEED Core & Shell for the overall base building tower, while also requiring all tenants to attain LEED for Commercial Interiors certification. Due to this unique scenario it is unclear how to address certain credit requirements for the Commercial Interiors projects when the tenants will be located within a Core & Shell building concurrently pursuing the same related credits, effectively making a LEED NC project. The CS project is 1.5M SF (mixed office/retail). We have a known occupancy for a portion of the tower and have calculated a default occupancy count for the remaining portion of the tower totaling 5,359 FTE Peak/4986 FTE, requiring 68 bike storage spaces and 25 showers/changing rooms. In an effort to provide the appropriate number of bike racks and changing rooms for both the CS and CI credit requirements, it is unclear how to avoid counting the tenants\' occupancy twice, thereby inflating the overall number of racks and changing rooms needed. As well, the credit calculation methodology differs among the two rating systems. Relative to bike racks the base building has provided 68 spaces which accounts for 3.5% of the total known and default occupancy of the building. CI requires bike storage be provided for 5% of the occupancy. We propose that all tenants may earn this credit by providing bike storage for the 1.5% of their occupancy which was not accounted for in the CS calculations. Relative to showers the CS project will have provided showers for 0.5% of the known and default FTE. CI requires that tenants provide showers for 0.625% of the occupants (equal to 1 per 8). Since the project is in essence the equivalent of a LEED NC project we propose that tenants be required to only provide showers for 0.5% of their occupants (as is also the new requirement in LEED ID+C 2009). The implication would be that the tenants whose known occupancy was accounted for in the CS calculation would not be required to add any new showers to earn LEED CI SSc3.2. For those (future) tenants who were accounted for using the default occupancy in the LEED CS calculation we propose that the requirement be to provide additional showers only if the actual occupancy is greater than the default used in the CS calculations. If the actual occupancy is greater we propose that the 0.5% rate be used in the calculation. This approach will allow the tenants to use the CS provided showers toward their count and will address any variations in occupancy density between actual and default. Please confirm if this is an acceptable approach for all tenants in this project. If this is not acceptable please define how a LEED CI tenant in a LEED CS building should calculate bikes/showers when the CS has already provided a percentage of these amenities.

Ruling:

The requirements of SSc4.2 under LEED CS and SSc3.2 under LEED CI are not incompatible and the relevant credit requirements must be met by each project in order to earn the credit requirements. Projects seeking compliance under LEED CI can make use of the bicycle racks and showers provided by the LEED CS project in their credit calculations so long as the bicycle racks and showers in question are only being counted toward that project and not being counted toward multiple projects seeking LEED CI certification. If the number of bicycle racks and showers provided by the LEED CS project is not sufficient to meet the credit requirements for the LEED CI project than the CI project team will need to supply additional amenities. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/1/2011
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

This is an inquiry about the calculation of the FTE in relation to our project in Zurich, Switzerland. In the LEED Reference Guide on page 53 the calculation of the FTE is based on a 8-hour working day. That means that an 8-hour occupant has an FTE value of 1.0. The standard working day in Switzerland contains 8.5 hours of work.In a FTE calculation on the basis that is provided in the LEED Reference Guide the normal working day of one single person would have the FTE value of 1.0625. As a consequence of the, in case of 1000 people fulltime staff this FTE calculation would have additional number of 63 FTE in comparion to an FTE value of 1.0.Is it possible to calculate the FTE value for this project with an 8.5 instead of 8 hour day, so that we would have the FTE value of 1.0 for a standard 8.5 hour-working day?

Ruling:

The project team has inquired if projects in Switzerland may use 8.5-hours as their working day instead of 8-hours as in the US. Each full-time employee based on Swiss and US labor laws works an 8.5-hour day, which includes a half-hour unpaid lunch break and two 15-minute paid breaks. In order to maintain the baseline for projects everywhere when calculating FTE occupancy, all Swiss projects, including those industries that have an overtime work culture for full-time employees, should still use the 8.0-hour work day in their FTE calculations. Applicable internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/23/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Under LEED NCv2.2, projects must provide adequate bike racks to serve 5% or more of all commercial and retail building users at peak periods of occupancy and shower and changing facilities for 0.5% of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) occupants. The credit also requires residential projects to provide 15% of residents with covered bike storage. Our project is a mixed use hotel, residential, retail and office building in New York City. We propose to provide: - Bike racks for at least 5% of the hotel and retail employees, retail customers and office tenants - Showers and changing facilities for at least 0.5% of the hotel and retail staff and office occupant FTE - Covered bike storage for at least 15% of residents - Hotel guests with information about where they can rent a bike for daily use We request exemption of the hotel guests from the onsite bike storage requirement as we do not believe they will bring bikes and it would be cost prohibitive to provide enough bike storage to serve 0.5% of them. The USGBC has previously ruled (SSc4.2 ruling dated 06/04/03) that an international airline terminal can meet the intent of this credit by providing bike racks, showers and changing facilities for the FTE staff occupancy exclusively, provided alternative transportation opportunities are maximized for transient occupants. In addition this would be extremely cost prohibitive based on the construction and real estate in New York City. Our project is located on 42nd Street, very near Times Square in midtown Manhattan. The primary modes of transportation around this busy retail, theatre and residential area are walking and subways. The project itself includes a new subway station that will lead pedestrians to 12 subway lines. The City\'s major bus terminal (Port Authority) is a block away from the project. The City\'s two major train stations are within walking distance, but hotel guests can also catch a pedicab, bus or subway from the project to reach them. We do not believe personal bicycles are a likely means of transportation for hotel guests (especially from the airport with luggage) to our project, and guests will have every means of reaching the hotel by public transportation. Out of town guests will be able to reach the project by subway, train or bus from all the major New Jersey and New York airports.

Ruling:

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

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/20/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our firm is currently working on a project designated as a port of entry from Mexico to the US. We are requesting a clarification on how occupants should be calculated in SSc4.2. CIR Ruling (9/14/2006) established that "Excluding a certain type of transient occupant from the required bicycle stall and shower calculations is permissible per previous v2.1 CIR Rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 8/7/2002. Please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from onsite storage facilities." These CIRs related to projects which were destination resorts and airline terminals. Our project, a US Port of Entry, has similar occupancy concerns that make it impractical to provide bicycle racks for all transient occupants. The vast majority of transients are typically crossing from Mexico into the US and are only passing through the facility. They consist of pedestrians or transients entering via automobile or motorcycles. If transients are commuting via bicycle they would typically not be spending time at the facility but merely passing through. This project anticipates achieving SSc4.1 (numerous bus lines within 1/4 mile and a rail line within 1/2 mile) and SSc4.3 and 4.4 (preferred parking for carpools and efficient vehicles). In addition to the previous credits this project will also obtain credit for SSc4.2. This project has 120 FTE and 22,720 transients. Using the above CIR Ruling, the occupant calculation would require 1,142 Bicycle Racks. However, in light of the fact that we believe the majority of the transients would simply be "passing through" this calculation seems excessive for this project. Our project team has identified the following option to address the intent of SSc4.2 and we would like to get direction from the USGBC on the following option: Provide bicycle storage for 5% FTE Showers will be provided to meet the requirement of 0.5% of FTE staff. The project team feels that this approach meets the intent of SSc4.2 for this type of facility. We respectfully request that the USGBC confirm that our approach is valid or provide clear guidance on how our assumptions should be modified to meet the intent of SSc4.2.

Ruling:

Providing bicycle storage for 5% of FTE and showers for 0.5% of FTE is an appropriate approach given the project circumstances and that other transportation credits are being pursued to accommodate the FTE and transient occupants. The exclusion of occupants who are passing through only to cross the border is in line with previous CIR rulings. When submitting the credit please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from onsite storage facilities. Applicable Internationally; Mexico.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
9/14/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting a ruling upon which occupants shall be included in the bicycle and shower calculations for SSc4.2. A previous CIR Ruling for LEED-NC 2.1 (dated 06/04/03) stated that an international airline terminal could meet the intent of this credit by providing adequate bicycle spaces and changing/showering facilities for only the staff employees if the calculation included all staff and the project maximized alternative transportation opportunities for transient occupants. Our project, a large destination resort, has similar occupancy conditions to the above-referenced CIR Ruling that make it impractical to provide bicycle racks for the transient occupants. Our project contains the following uses: hotels, condominiums, retail shops, conference center, theater, gaming, and restaurants. As a result, we propose to identify three types of occupants in this project - employees, condominium residents, and transient guests. Our transient guests travel from around the country and the world and arrive via the airport or long distance car & bus trips. These guests are served by a variety of alternative transportation services such as monorails, city buses, a tourist trolley, and hotel shuttle buses. Consistent with the resort\'s commitment to integrating environmental sustainability into the project, we will be making a substantial investment in supporting bicycling. We are planning to provide over 300 bicycle spaces and the associated number of showers, based on our employee counts. The impact opportunity is substantial. Since the commuting characteristics of this project are similar to the airport terminal situation described in the previous CIR, with the addition of a residential component, please confirm that we can achieve this credit by providing bicycle spaces for 5% of peak on-site employees, showers for 0.5% of peak on-site employees and bicycle spaces for 15% of condominium residents.

Ruling:

Excluding a certain type of transient occupants from the required bicycle stall and shower calculations is permissible per previous v2.1 CIR Rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 8/7/2002. Please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from on site storage facilities. It is not acceptable to automatically exclude all transient visitors from these calculations as it is reasonable to expect that some of the visitors to the retail shops, conference center, theater, and gaming facilities could potentially arrive on a bicycle, therefore please be certain to include these areas, when appropriate, in the bicycle stall calculations. The proposed strategy to provide bicycle stalls for 15% of condominium residents is consistent with credit requirements for residential buildings. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
8/7/2002
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

It appears that the LEED criteria may be developed for a more generic office situation and our college campus operates very differently. There are several extenuating factors. Unlike most similar higher education institutions, Colorado College has maintained a relatively constant student population as mandated in the school\'s educational charter. Therefore, an additional building does not imply more students although may indicate additional educators and support staff. Colorado College is a small residential campus requiring ~75% of the students to live in campus housing (all students except seniors must live on campus), which is on contiguous property and within easy walking distance, ~ 1/4 mile. A portion of the professors are also visitors, living in campus housing during their instructional Block (this reduction has not been entered into the calculation). The use of automobiles to attend daily classes is minimal, due to the very short distance. Colorado College operates educationally under the "Block Plan" where only one class is taken at a time for a three and one half week duration in a dedicated Classroom; generally, there is only one class per Classroom per day. The actual usage of the space as compared to the FTE (full time equivalent) students is realistically less than one when considering the primary classroom session generally is in the morning (this reduction has not been entered into the calculation). A maximum of 25 students is allowed per class, so this number is used in the following calculations but the actual students per class will average less (this reduction has not been entered into the calculation). The following numbers are based on actual Classroom and Office room counts for the Tutt Science Center. --437 students count or ~110 adjusted students count when only 25% arrive from the surrounding community --35 professors and support staff when assuming 100% arrive from the surrounding community --437 + 35 equal 472 total building population --110 + 35 equal 145 adjusted total building population Our question is, can we use the 472 people as our total building population, while using the "adjusted" or "commuter" population for determining showering facilities and parking requirements? This would mean that 472 would be used to determine bike rack needs, which seems appropriate as the on-campus students may also ride bikes for a short distance, while 145 would be used as the building population when determining showering facilities, number of parking spaces, and also the number of alternative refueling stations. For example, using the total population for the bicycle storage capacity would give .05 x 472 equals ~24. Considering the short travel distance for most, shower usage should be minimal and the 145 adjusted building population seems realistic. The resulting count of .05 x 145 / 8 equal ~ 1 shower should be a more accurate appraisal of the potential use.

Ruling:

Showers Per previous inquiry, 0153-SSc42-081701, the LEED Steering Committee has ruled: "Although, transients are required to calculate the bike storage capacity, they shall not be required to be included in the occupant count for calculating the number of showers/changing areas. Transients are defined as visitors to the building for less than 7 hours." Therefore, providing showers based on full time staff or staff FTE will meet the requirements of this credit. Parking If the campus master plan is designed such that 75% of students do not drive to class, and essentially have parking already provided for them adjacent to their housing, their parking needs are already met. The remaining 25% of students and 100% of staff can be used as the \'occupancy\' to calculate required parking and alternative fueling stations. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/2/2014
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Please provide clarification on requirements for residential Interior Design and Construction projects pursuing SSc3.2: Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms credit.

Ruling:

Residential Interior Design and Construction projects need to fulfill the following requirements in order to achieve SSc3.2: Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms credit:
• For projects located in completely residential base buildings, the project must provide 15% covered bicycle parking. All residential users must be considered in these calculations.
• For projects that are located in mixed-use (non-residential/residential) base buildings, the project must provide bicycle parking based on the users, by splitting the user groups and providing 15% covered bicycle parking for residents and 5% for users of commercial space, including the required showers, as already outlined in the credit language.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
6/20/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

This CIR is in reference to FTE calculations for a multi-floor hotel in a high-density urban setting. FTE calculation for full-time and part-time employees of the hotel can be calculated using actual numbers. Transients as defined by the USGBC are visitors to a building for less than 7 hours. However, this does not always apply to the variable number of guests or the variable amount of time guests will stay in a hotel on a daily basis. The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA) is the sole national representing body of all sectors in the lodging industry. The AH&LA has lodging occupancy tracked on a weekly basis (research performed by Smith Travel Research). The AH&LA 2006 annual report calculates the year-end lodging occupancy at 63.4%. In a CIR request dated 10/27/2005 (ruling dated 12/9/2005), occupancy for residential projects allows for FTE calculations based on number of bedrooms: 2 regular occupants for a one-bedroom unit, 3 for a two-bedroom unit, and so on. Therefore, since occupancy rates are highly variable for hotels, can FTE be calculated based on the number of rooms x average occupancy/room (e.g. 2) in a hotel multiplied by an average lodging occupancy percent (per the AH&LA) to obtain the transient occupant calculation? For example: 200 units x 2 guests/unit = 400 total guests; 400 guests x 60% (average of the AH&LA information) = 240 calculated transient occupants. This number would then be the transient occupant count added to the calculated FTE of employees for the occupant value for LEED calculations.

Ruling:

Your FTE approach seems reasonable based on the variable transient occupancy of a hotel, and you are encouraged to utilize it. Please note that previous CIRs have ruled that certain transient populations can be excluded from the calculations in determining the number of required bike storage spaces and showers for this credit. Please refer to NCv2.1 SSc4.2 CIR ruling dated 9/14/2006 for additional guidance. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
2/12/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Tenant is relocating to a landmark San Francisco high-rise building with limited space for additional bicycle racks and storage. Building management policy is to allow tenants to take bicycles up to their floor via a service elevator through the basement garage since it can accommodate only about half of the necessary bike storage facilities in the garage (48 bike racks for approximately 1,800 total building employees). Since the same building has no showers, and it would be a physical and financial challenge to construct them within the tenant\'s space, the tenant will purchase basic club memberships at a physical fitness/health club offering lockers and showers located within 200 yards for all employees riding their bicycles to work. These memberships will be free to the employees. Documentation will consist of letters from building management and tenant confirming bike access and floor storage policies; copy of agreement with fitness/health club; and site map indicating physical distance from tenant\'s building entrance to the fitness/health club facility. We believe that this strategy will meet the intent of the credit by taking advantage of existing facilities and support policies without expending additional valuable construction resources.

Ruling:

Yes, the project\'s approach to achieving this credit appears to meet the credit intent and requirements. This project will earn this credit provided that the team (1) provide calculations that 5% of the FTE Occupancy has access to secure storage area(s) for bicycles; (2) submit a site and/or floor plan showing the location and type of the bike storage facilities as well as a narrative of how these facilities will be secured per the credit requirements (the storage facilities can be in the garage, on the tenant floor, or a combination of the two); and (3) per the LEED CI v2.0 SSc3.2 ruling dated 9/28/2005 and the CI Reference Guide, the approach to providing showers is acceptable as long as all the provisions described within that CIR are met. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/30/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting a ruling about how occupants should be calculated in SSc4.2 for our project, which is a professional hockey arena. A previous CIR Ruling (9/14/2006) established that "Excluding a certain type of transient occupants from the required bicycle stall and shower calculations is permissible per previous v2.1 CIR Rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 8/7/2002. Please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from onsite storage facilities." These CIRs related to projects which were destination resorts and airline terminals. Our project, a professional hockey arena, has similar occupancy concerns that make it impractical to provide bicycle racks for all transient occupants. Because the largest events (hockey games) are held late at night and because many event attendees are coming from far away, it is much more likely for attendees to carpool and use public transit than to ride a bicycle. The project anticipates achieving SSc4.1 (numerous bus lines within 1/4 mile and a rail line within 1/2 mile) and SSc4.3 and 4.4 (preferred parking for carpools and efficient vehicles). In addition, for SSc4.2, the project will be building a new bike path to encourage bicycle use, especially during daytime events. Thus, we have developed ways to address both daytime and nighttime events, as described below: For daytime events, our project team has identified two options to address the intent of SSc4.2 that we would like to get direction from the USGBC on: 1. Provide 100 secure bike racks for 5% of the FTE staff plus 5% of the transient occupants who attend daytime events. Peak occupancy during daytime events is expected to be for tradeshows that occupy the main hockey floor space. For this use, occupancy is expected to be about 2000 people for the peak event time. This figure represents about 300 operation/vendors, 1685 attendees and 15 staff. Thus 100 bike racks represent 5% of this occupancy to satisfy the intent of credit SSc4.2. OR 2. Provide 50 secure bike racks for general-use occupancy and require the Events Operator to set up a secure bike corral for at least 50 additional bike racks for any event that anticipates attendance in excess of 1000 people for its peak occupancy time. Nighttime events will be larger, up to 6000 people (peak concert); but as noted above, late egress will discourage bicycle ridership such that peak use will be less than daytime events. For nighttime events, we feel it is only reasonable to expect attendees to ride a bicycle if they live within 5 miles of the arena. The website CommuterChoice.com notes that the average bicycle commute in the US is about 2 miles, so we feel that this allowance of a 5 mile bicycle commute to the arena at night is an aggressive expectation. Our transportation consultant has estimated that about 7% of attendees live within 5 miles of the arena. Thus, for the maximum event of 6000 people, the number of attendees living within 5 miles of the arena would be 420 people. Staff/vendors at this event would be 315, making a total of 735. The 100 or 50 bike racks that would be provided for the project thus represent respectively 13% and 7% of the nighttime occupants who might be expected to commute by bicycle to the event. Showers will be provided to meet the requirement of 0.5% of FTE staff for all events (both daytime and nighttime). The project team feels that this night-time approach and both the daytime options meet the intent of SSc4.2 for this type of facility. We request that the USGBC either confirm that our approach is valid for both daytime event options and nighttime events, or provide clear guidance on how our assumptions should be modified to meet the intent of SSc4.2.

Ruling:

The CIR is requesting clarification on calculation of occupancy for a large sports arena in order to provide the appropriate number of bicycle racks. The team has provided multiple assumptions and calculation methodologies and is requesting guidance on which approaches should be used. 1. The team has presented assumptions regarding which transient occupants can be expected to use bicycles to reach the event. The team assumes that visitors coming to the site at night are less likely to ride bikes than those coming during the day due to safety concerns, and therefore more there will be a higher demand for bike parking in the day, even though peak occupancy is lower. This is potentially a reasonable assumption, given that the project team provides clear information on the types of day and night uses, the hours of operation, the peak occupancies of each use and other relevant justifying information or data. 2. The team has stated that visitors living within a five mile radius of the site are the most likely to travel by bike, and therefore bikes should be provided for local visitors only. Focusing on local visitors is an acceptable approach for calculating transient occupants but not regular occupants. Additional information would be required to support the use of a 5-mile radius, as well as to support the calculation of the percentage of visitors within this radius. Detailed calculations from the transportation consultant or other relevant data would be required in order to use this approach, which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Reviewers will take into consideration building type and program, location, bicycle network and other variables in evaluating the merits of this approach. 3. The team has presented two strategies for providing bicycle storage—either permanent secure bike parking or valet service for bike storage. Either approach is acceptable. If a valet service is being used, refer to the requirements included in NC v2.2, SSc4.2 CIR ruling 10/24/2007.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/20/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our building is located on a 1,275-acre university campus among 79 buildings with dozens more in the planning stages. The university has 1,065 support staff, 750 faculty (or 1,435 FTE) and 23,464 peak-period transient students/visitors. Adequate bicycle storage can be easily provided for each building, but providing showers and changing rooms is our challenge. Based on the number of FTE\'s, eight showers would need to be distributed among each of the 79 buildings (see related AGMBC notes). The 200-yard distance maximum would not be possible to maintain for the eight showers required (based on 1,435 FTE\'s) distributed in zones among 79 buildings and therefore the number needed to comply with the requirement for each building would significantly increase by a factor of four times or more. This is not a feasible strategy for the university and also not a good use of resources. However, there are two centrally located facilities on campus with showers to which staff and faculty have unlimited access. The Indoor Recreation Facility has 12 shower heads in 4 areas and the Field House has 143 shower heads in 9 areas. These facilities are linked together with 5 free bus/shuttle lines that operate in 7 to 8 minute intervals between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm. This strategy is analogous to the compliance path for credit EAc4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access, which allows the use of shuttles to connect to primary bus and rail systems. Please confirm that the use of centrally located showers accessible by shuttles is an acceptable alternative to the 200-yard maximum.

Ruling:

The project is requesting that showers farther than 200 yards from the building entrance be acceptable because of the free campus shuttle service available. This is not an acceptable alternative compliance path. In order to make bicycle commuting a viable and attractive option for building occupants the showers must be within 200 yards of the building entrance. Please note that the project need only provide showers for 0.5% of FTE of the project itself, not the entire campus. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
6/25/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting approval of an alternate compliance path with regards to the quantity of showers required to comply with Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2 in the LEED NCv2.2 rating system. Our project, located in Cairo, Egypt, provides areas within the building for prayer and ablution areas adjacent to it used for ritual cleansing before prayer time. Each ablution area, one each for males and females, will have four sinks that are actually shower-like faucets on a wall above a trough for a total of eight sinks. We will send a photo example separately. There are no walls or enclosures around each of the sinks, although there are separate ablution areas for men and women. Users remain robed while using the sinks, except for socks, shoes and jackets. Users will typically roll up their sleeves and using a washcloth wash their arms, armpits, face, hair, feet and lower legs. While these ablution areas are used for religious practice, it is common and socially acceptable to use them for general washing as well. Furthermore, social norms do not dictate full daily washings that are typical of American culture, making "sponge" bathing a more common practice for personal hygiene for the majority of the population. We are proposing that each bathing fixture in each ablution area be counted as an individual shower, in our case eight in total. In order to fulfill the need of all occupants of the building, four regular showers, two for each gender, will also be provided in the building for occupants that wish to use a full shower and changing facility. Our building has an FTE of 1080, which requires 5.4 showers, or 3 for each gender. We believe that access to the 4 showers and 8 ablution sinks meets the intent of the credit while also being more appropriate for the social customs of the culture. Is this approach acceptable?

Ruling:

The project is located in Egypt and is seeking confirmation on whether the use of ablution sinks can be considered towards achievement of this credit. Based on the specific local religious and social customs, the use of ablution sinks can be deemed comparable to the use of showers, and can be included in the total number of showers required for credit compliance. However, in cases like this, at a minimum, 50% of the required number of showers must be provided by full showers/changing facilities, to ensure that all occupant needs are adequately met. The project team should include justification for this alternative approach in the LEED submission, clearly demonstrating that the majority of the building occupants adhere to these religious and social customs, and the associated use of the ablution sinks. Applicable Internationally; Egypt.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
3/22/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

My question isn\'t necessarily about Credit 4.2. It\'s mostly about the definition of the site boundary. I have reviewed previous CIRs and from that I learned the site definition needs to be consistent with all credits.My project is two adjacent buildings which will be certified separately; their construction schedules are the same.Here\'s my question. If there are showers in one building does the second building need showers also? It is within 200 yards of other building. Again, both buildings are seeking LEED certification and their schedules are the same.A second related question relates to SS Credit 6.1. We\'re considering a cistern. Do both buildings need one to get the credit for both? Obviously if we only install one cistern to handle both buildings the cistern will be outside the site boundary for one of the buildings. Or do we need to install a cistern for each building so that cistern is located within site boundary for both?

Ruling:

The showers in one of your project buildings can be included in the credit calculations for both buildings, assuming the showers are within 200 yards of the entrance to the adjacent building. To demonstrate achievement for both LEED projects, be sure to demonstrate that the number of showers supports the occupancy for both buildings combined. The same logic applies to features such as a stormwater cistern. If the cistern is constructed to serve the needs of the building/site area in question, it can count towards credit achievement. Essentially it is appropriate to consider your project a campus situation and share infrastructure, as long as each building meets the performance requirements. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/1/2012
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 14 story residential building located in MD. Of the building is 152,740 sf with 150,340 sf of residential and 2,400 sf of ground floor retail. The main building occupants will be the 343 residents. The retail space, which for this project\'s purposes is core and shell space, will be occupied by an estimated 5 retail employees, and 19 retail transients.Our question is in regard to the shower requirement of SSc4.2. Given that the retail space comprises only 1.5% of the total floor area of the project, and will be served by only 5 employees, we propose that the project not be required to provide showers and changing facilities for the retail employees. The project will provide bike racks for the residents (343 residents x 15% = 52 bikes), as well as retail employees and retail transients (24 retail employees/transients x 5% = 2 bikes).To support this proposal, we draw on a previous CIR Ruling dated 4/4/2005 which stated that, "If the mixed-use building is less than 10% commercial square feet, the entire building can be considered residential and adhere to the residential requirements."

Ruling:

The Project Team is inquiring whether the shower and changing facility requirements of SSc4.2 can be exempt for the retail area of a mixed use building where the retail area comprises approximately 1.6% of the total building area. For guidance on this issue, the project should refer to LI 10209 which describes how mixed-use projects with a nonresidential square footage of less than 10% and no greater than 5,000 square feet can document credit compliance. Regarding the use of Retail Supplement compliance paths, since rating systems are comprehensive, substituting the Retail Supplement\'s credit requirements for parts of a building project is granted on a case-by-case basis. Given the allowance provided by LI XXXX, it would not be an appropriate to allow additional approaches to documenting credit achievement.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
3/10/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting a ruling on an alternative approach to calculating required bicycle storage for SS Credit 4.2 for a professional hockey arena. Occupancy for the facility is expected to be as follows: FTE: 115 Peak event staff: 700 Peak spectators: 18,500 Peak players: 25 Total: 19,340 Bicycle storage to serve all guests and staff who are likely to be at the arena during a sold-out game, would amount to 967 storage spaces if the credit requirements were followed as written. However, for reasons similar to those presented in the Credit Interpretation Requests dated 9/12/2007 and 10/5/2007 the project team feels that it is impractical to impose the same bicycle storage rules for this facility as for office buildings, namely: - Transient occupants tend to attend sporting and entertainment events in groups rather than as individuals. - This project has ample public transportation within 1/4 mile of the site. - The largest events occur in the evenings in the winter, times during which cycling is not ideal for safety and comfort reasons. - Similar facilities, such as the SF Giants described in the 9/12/2007 CIR, have demonstrated that current demand for bicycle storage is significantly lower than what SS Credit 4.2 requires. - The land required to provide permanent bicycle storage that has little likelihood of being used is not an ideal usage of the site. The project team proposes two ways of providing bicycle storage quantity that will adequately serve the realistically expected current demand for this facility while allowing for capacity growth based on peak demand. 1. To establish the current demand for transient occupant bicycle storage, statistics from a local non-profit cyclist organization whose mission is "to establish [a] city that is increasingly safe, accessible, and friendly to bicycle transportation" will be used. This organization states that the current rate of commuting by cyclists to the arena neighborhood is 0.8%. Applying this statistic to the peak occupancy stated above, 154 bicycle storage spaces would be needed for events. To accommodate 125% of this estimated demand, a total of 194 bicycle storage spaces would be provided using permanent and/or valet bicycle storage. Over time, peak demand will be monitored such that bicycle storage provided always exceeds demand by 25% until the maximum bike storage capacity of 5% of peak building users (or 967) is met. OR 2. To establish the current demand for bicycle, the team management will survey staff and season ticket holders to determine: a. The number (and percentage) that currently travels to events via bicycle b. The number (and percentage) who would consider traveling to events via bicycle if secure storage were provided at the arena Based on the survey results, enough permanent and/or valet bicycle storage will be provided to accommodate 125% of current demand. Each season, peak demand will be monitored such that bicycle storage provided always exceeds demand by 25% until the maximum bike storage capacity of 5% of peak building users (or 967) is met. For both approaches above, shower/changing facilities will be made available for 0.5% of all FTE occupants. If a valet service is used it will be implemented considering the requirements in the CIR ruling dated 10/24/2007.

Ruling:

The project team is requesting guidance on two alternative approaches to calculating the number of bi-cycles to be accommodated with secure bicycle storage for a professional hockey arena. The project has proposed 2 approaches, both resulting in the provision of 125% of the current estimated bicycle parking and storage needs, with regular monitoring to ensure available bicycle parking and storage exceeds demand by 25% until the credit requirement— providing bicycle storage for 5% of the building occupants—has been met. Approach 1 is based on the based on statistics gathered from a local biking advocacy organization, whereas Approach 2 is based on a survey of staff and season ticket holders. Either strategy is acceptable, as long as documentation of the process includes detailed calculations, and a description of how the current bike capacity was determined. The project team must also show how the bicycle storage will be monitored and demonstrate the capacity for future expansion exists, should it be needed, as stated in LEED NC 2.2, SSc4.2 CIR ruling 10/24/2007. The alternate strategy outlined is acceptable for large special events facilities only, because of the particular nature of these projects.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
6/7/2004
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

There are a number of credit inquiries that relate to the shower requirements at college or university campuses, and as a result, the USGBC has expanded the proximity of changing/shower facilities to the project site from being required on the project site, to being required within 100 yards of the building, to the current standard of being required within 200 yards of the building. This credit inquiry seeks to have Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2 awarded by demonstrating that the intent of the credit is being fully achieved even if the specific distance limit is not. Our project is the renovation of the S.T. Dana Building Renovation, home of the School of Natural Resources & Environment at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dana is located in the central campus area facing onto the University\'s main quadrangle, know as the Diag. This area of the campus is served by a very large recreational and athletic facility, The Central Campus Recreational Building (CCRB). As an athletic facility, the CCRB provides a substantial number of locker rooms and showers for use by faculty, staff and students on the Central Campus. The CCRB is located roughly 300 yards from the Dana Building. It is easily within a 5 minute walk or a quarter mile of the building, which is the maximum distance LEED allows for walking to a building from public transit. This arrangement currently serves the biking population at the Dana Building with success as demonstrated by the transit survey conducted during the LEED project implementation. A transit survey conducted in April 2002 determined that the current biking population of the Dana Building exceeds the minimum of 5% required for this credit by 22%. - Number of respondents: 171 or 41% of the peak occupant load. (21 faculty; 39 staff; 111 students) - Number of respondents who bike from home to campus: 47 or 27%. Without showers in the building, this exceeds the LEED target by 22%. - Number of respondents who use their bikes to travel around campus during the day: 32. - The survey asked "if you had access to showers, would you be more likely to commute to school/work by bicycle or foot?" 124 or 72% said No. The transit study further determined that the average commute to campus is 6.1 miles and the average commute during the day around campus is 1.2 miles. The peak load occurs during the academic school year, September through May. The climate of Ann Arbor, Michigan, is such that showering after relatively short bike commutes is not necessary, like it might be in a southern and hot, humid campus. The minimum required number of bicycle racks is met within the LEED project boundary; numerous additional racks are provided within 200 yards of the building. The transit survey clearly demonstrates that the intent of this credit has been met at the Dana Building, even though the specific distance requirements are not met. Would this credit be awarded on these grounds? We also request confirmation that our peak occupant load and non-transient occupant load calculations are appropriate. They are as follows. 53 Staff (8 hr/day) = 53 Non-Transients and 53 FTE Occupants (peak load) 57 Faculty (8 hr/day) = 57 Non-Transients and 57 FTE Occupants (peak load) 81 PhD Students (6 hr/day) = 0 Non-Transients and 61 FTE Occupants (peak load) 185 Master (Except LA) Students (4 hr/day) = 0 Non-Transients and 93 FTE Occupants (peak load) 235 Undergraduate Students (2 hr/day) = 0 Non-Transients and 59 FTE Occupants (peak load) 60 Master of Landscape Architecture Students (8 hr/day) = 60 Non-Transients and 60 FTE Occupants (peak load) 29 LS&A (4th Floor) (8 hr/day)= 29 Non-Transients and 29 FTE Occupants (peak load) 700 Total = 199 Non-Transients and 411 FTE Occupants (peak load) Based on 411 FTE Occupants (peak load), secure slots are needed for 21 bicycles (5% min). Based on 199 Non-Transients, two showers are needed.

Ruling:

The transit survey provides clear evidence that there is a sizable bicycling community at the campus, and sufficient bicycle racks have been provided for these cyclists. However, based on the credit requirements and previous CIRs on this issue, the showers that are located 300 yards from the project unfortunately cannot be used to capture this point. Your calculation methodology used to determine the number of FTE building occupants and non-transient occupants is acceptable and consistent with guidelines provided by previous CIRs for this, including the ruling dated 8/7/2002. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/27/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project scope is unique in that the building owner will also be the primary tenant of building and is currently seeking certification under LEED Core & Shell for the overall base building tower, while simultaneously pursuing LEED for Commercial Interiors for the one-half portion within the building they will occupy. In this scenario it is unclear exactly how to address certain credit requirements for a Commercial Interiors project when the space will be located within a Core & Shell building concurrently pursuing the same related credits. In an effort to provide the appropriate number of bike racks and changing rooms for both the CS and CI credit requirements, it is unclear how to avoid counting our clients known occupancy twice, thereby inflating the overall number of racks and changing rooms needed. As well, the credit calculation methodology differs among the two rating systems. For the LEED CS credit requirements we have calculated the required number of bike racks/changing facilities for the entire building, which includes the LEED CI project space. Next, calculations for LEED CI are then factored, based on 5% of occupancy. However we disagree with this number since the known occupancy of the LEED CI project has already been included in the LEED CS calculation and therefore to a certain extent (3.5%) have already been accounted for. As a reasonable alternative we suggest the CI calculation methodology for bike storage be revised for this project to aptly address the 5% requirement. In other words, calculate an additional 1.5% based on occupancy. In addition, CI calculates showers based on number of bikers (1 per 8) whereas CS calculates showers based on 0.5% of FTE. Since showers have already been included for the CS calculation (which was based on total occupancy of the building) then the CI occupants have already been accommodated for changing facilities at 0.5%. Accordingly, in this scenario the addition of changing facilities would not be necessary. With this, please confirm that both (CS and CI) projects will be able to earn the credit.

Ruling:

The approach described for determining the number of bicycle storage and shower facilities for both the CS and CI projects appears reasonable. For determining bicycle storage, 3.5% of the FTE is accounted for under CS and an additional 1.5% has been added to allow for the requirement of 5% of building occupants under CI. For determining the number of showers, the CS calculation has been used which takes into account the FTE of the CI space. Please ensure that a consistent FTE is used across all the LEED credits and that it takes into account the whole base building. FTE should be determined by using the CS guidelines for the general office and retail space for the undeveloped portion of the building in addition to the known FTE of the CI space. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
3/21/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

The intent of this credit is to reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. Pacific Garden Mission (PGM), a homeless shelter for homeless men and women in Chicago, is proposing an alternate calculation for the required bicycle storage capacity for this facility. PGM has four types of occupants: Transient-homeless; Program-people, Resident-staff and Commuting-staff. The Transient-homeless are the primary occupants. Averaging about 800 people, they come and go nightly with only what they can carry in bags, suitcases or backpacks. They certainly do not have cars or bicycles to use and/or bring to PGM. They stay temporarily at PGM-not long enough to qualify as residents or to enable them to even consider acquiring a bicycle. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to include them in the calculating the required amount of bicycle storage. We propose to not require bicycle storage for the Transient-homeless population at the facility. Program-people are homeless people who are enrolled in training/education programs at PGM. The average program person resides 45 days before moving on. These 140 people are not long-term residents but some may have the opportunity to acquire a bicycle during their 45 day stay. Most likely it would be a used bicycle that would be kept outside. We propose to allocate outside bike storage for 5% of the Program-people. (140 x 5% = 7 outside spaces). Resident-staff work and reside at PGM. Of the sixty (60) total staff, forty (40) are Resident-staff that live at the facility and twenty (20) commute. The Resident-staff typically stay for 2 to 3 years and are therefore able to own bicycles. As such, the project team proposes to calculate the amount of bicycle storage for Resident-staff as detailed by the LEED Reference Guide for a residential facility. This means that covered bicycle storage for 15% of these occupants must be provided. (40 x 15% = 6 covered spaces) For Commuting staff, the need for bicycle storage for staff will be calculated as detailed by the LEED Reference Guide for a commercial facility. This means that bicycle storage for 5% of these occupants will be provided, plus separate showering facilities as per the LEED Reference Guide. (20 x 5% = 1 outside space) In summary, the proposed changes are to: 1) Not allocate bicycle storage for the Transient-Homeless population since they do not have, nor is it practical for them to have, bicycles; 2) Allocate outside bicycle racks for 5% of the Program-People. 3) The resulting proposed required amount of bicycle storage and the actual storage in the design are summarized as follows: Occupant Type #Occupants Typical Duration of Stay Type storage % of occupants served # of bikes stored Transient-homeless 800 1-2 days overnight N.A. 0% 0 Program-people 140 45 days overnight Open 5% 7 Resident staff 40 2 to 3 years Covered 15% 6 Commuting staff 20 One 8-hour shift/day Open 5% 1 Type storage # bicycles stored # bicycles stored # extra spaces Proposed Requirement In The Design In the Design Open 8 18 10 Covered 6 7 1 Note that the design does call for a number of extra spaces that could be allocated as needed among the all the various occupants. Please let us know if this alternative method for calculating the requirements of SS Credit 4.2 is acceptable.

Ruling:

The applicant is requesting clarification about how bicycle parking requirements pertain to overnight homeless residents and longer-term homeless residents in a homeless shelter for homeless men and women in Chicago. Given the specific circumstances of this project, the proposed approach of exempting the overnight homeless residents from bicycle parking requirements is appropriate. However, the longer term Program-people must be included under the residential requirement of covered bicycle parking for 15% of occupants, as these occupants reside in the building and bicycle use may be offsetting car, bus or other transit trips. The proposed calculations for resident staff and commuting staff are appropriate. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
5/13/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

This CIR is in reference to FTE calculations for a multi-floor hotel in a high-density urban setting. FTE calculation for full-time and part-time employees of the hotel can be calculated using actual numbers. Transients as defined by the USGBC are visitors to a building for less than 7 hours. However, this does not always apply to the variable number of guests or the variable amount of time guests will stay in a hotel on a daily basis. The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA) is the sole national representing body of all sectors in the lodging industry. The AH&LA has lodging occupancy tracked on a weekly basis (research performed by Smith Travel Research). The AH&LA 2006 annual report calculates the year-end lodging occupancy at 63.4%. In a CIR request dated 10/27/2005 (ruling dated 12/9/2005), occupancy for residential projects allows for FTE calculations based on number of bedrooms: 2 regular occupants for a one-bedroom unit, 3 for a two-bedroom unit, and so on. Therefore, since occupancy rates are highly variable for hotels, can FTE be calculated based on the number of rooms x average occupancy/room (e.g. 2) in a hotel multiplied by an average lodging occupancy percent (per the AH&LA) to obtain the transient occupant calculation? For example: 200 units x 2 guests/unit = 400 total guests; 400 guests x 60% (average of the AH&LA information) = 240 calculated transient occupants. This number would then be the transient occupant count added to the calculated FTE of employees for the occupant value for LEED calculations.

Ruling:

Your FTE approach seems reasonable based on the variable transient occupancy of a hotel, and you are encouraged to utilize it. Please note that previous CIRs have ruled that certain transient populations can be excluded from the calculations in determining the number of required bike storage spaces and showers for this credit. Please refer to CIR ruling dated 9/14/2006 for additional guidance. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
See all forum discussions about this credit »

Checklists

Step by step to LEED certification

LEEDuser’s checklists walk you through the key action steps you need to earn a credit, including how to avoid common pitfalls and save money.

See all forum discussions about this credit »

Documentation toolkit

The motherlode of cheat sheets

LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit is loaded with calculators to help assess credit compliance, tracking spreadsheets for materials, sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions, and examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects for you to check your work against. To get your plaque, start with the right toolkit.

Credit achievement rate

XX%

Upgrade to LEEDuser Premium to see how many projects achieved this credit. Try it free »

LEEDuser expert

Marilyn Specht

Integral group
Principal, US Sustainability Consulting Lead

Get the inside scoop

Our editors have written a detailed analysis of nearly every LEED credit, and LEEDuser premium members get full access. We’ll tell you whether the credit is easy to accomplish or better left alone, and we provide insider tips on how to document it successfully.

USGBC logo

© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

Requirements

Provide secure bicycle racks and/or storage within 200 yards (200 meters) of a main building entrance for 5% or more of tenant occupants (measured at peak periods).

Provide shower and changing facilities in the building, or within 200 yards (200 meters) of a building entrance, for 0.5% of full-time equivalent (FTE) occupants.

XX%

Upgrade to LEEDuser Premium to see how many projects achieved this credit. Try it free »

Got the gist of SSc3.2 but not sure how to actually achieve it? LEEDuser gives step-by-step help. Premium members get:

  • Checklists covering all the key action steps you'll need to earn the credit.
  • Hot tips to give you shortcuts and avoid pitfalls.
  • Cost tips to assess what a credit will actually cost, and how to make it affordable.
  • Ideas for going beyond LEED with best practices.
  • All checklists organized by project phase.
  • On-the-fly suggestions of useful items from the Documentation Toolkit and Credit Language.

In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit, for premium members only, saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:

  • Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
  • Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
  • Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
  • Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
  • Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
  • Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.

Do I round up or down? What if the calculations show that I need 0.5 showers?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Our building is mostly residential. Must we provide showers and changing rooms for the nonresidential portion?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Does LEED have any requirements on spacing or the type of bike racks used? What about security?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Are there specific requirements for the changing rooms, such as size?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Based on my FTE calculations, I am only required to provide 1 shower to meet this requirement. Since both males and females will have access to this one shower, and it will be in a single room, does this satisfy the credit requirements? Can I use an existing shower in a handicapped-accessible bathroom?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Do bike racks have to be within the LEED project boundary?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

My project type serves visitors who can reasonably be expected to not be using bikes, e.g. hotel, airport, assisted living facility. Can I exclude them from bike rack requirements?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Is a general storage room that is accessible to residents acceptable for covered bike storage?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

1/8/2010Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Insert the term "Tenant space" in alphabetical order with the accompanying text "Tenant space is the area within the LEED project boundary. For more information on what can and must be in the LEED project boundary see the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) and LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance. Note: tenant space is the same as project space."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
10/24/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Establishment of baseline FTE for a Transient Facility:This Washington, DC Major League Ballpark experiences a transient population roughly 81 times per year on "event" days only (a ballgame). The project team developed a calculation to determine the number of Full Time Equivalents that would become the baseline for the bicycle racks and showering facilities required. The team originally took the full time building population (250 occupants at 8 hours per day/total person hours per day/260 annual days of occupancy/total person hours per year) and a part-time population count based on the number of fans that would be attending an event in equivalent hours (35,000 avg. game attendance at 4 hours per day/total person hours per day/81 annual days of occupancy/total person hours per year) for a total FTE of 5702 occupants.Bicycle Racks Calculation:With a baseline FTE of 5702, the total number of bike racks required to satisfy the credit requirements are: FTE = 5702 * 5% = 286 bike racks required.Original Solution:In order to support bicycle transportation as a viable means of accessing the Ballpark, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) is donating 286 bicycle storage racks which will be located around the ballpark site, convenient to multiple points of entry (within 200 yards). Secure bicycle storage is provided in the garage for full time employees. The Ballpark team submitted documentation to this effect on July 30, 2007. In addition to 286 racks on site, DDOT will be installing racks on surrounding blocks, however the exact number and location is not determined at this time. The Ballpark team felt this met the intent of the credit by supporting the use of bicycle transportation to and from the Ballpark, however the credit was denied in the design phase review (with request for clarification).Design Phase Review Response:"The LEED Submittal Template has been provided claiming that the project has provided bicycle storage and shower facilities for 5% of the FTE building occupants. For this credit, the peak number of transient occupants should be included in the FTE occupant count. For a ballpark, transient occupants will be at the stadium at the same time, so the peak occupancy should not assume a diversity factor, but should include all guests and staff that are likely to be at a ballpark during a sold-out game.TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please provide revised FTE occupancy calculations that account for transient visitors at peak occupancy. The calculations should include the peak number of transient visitors expected to visit the building at any given time."Revised Calculation:If we add the peak attendance of 41,000 (sold out game) plus 250 FTE, the credit would require 2,064 bicycle storage spaces. According to the Executive Director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA), this exceeds the bicycle storage capacity at Amsterdam Central Station and would constitute about a linear mile of bicycles. The WABA has over 7,000 members, yet the Executive Director remarked that providing nearly 300 storage spaces is already probably in excess of need, let alone over 2,000.The Ballpark team also finds 2,064 permanent storage spaces to be excessive for numerous reasons:The LEED Rating System (and this credit) was originally developed to address commercial office buildings. Whether by bicycle, private car or public transit, both FTE and Transient populations typically arrive at buildings of this type individually rather than in groups (unless they are carpooling, which is addressed by another credit). Ball games tend to be social events, primarily attended by groups of people rather than by individuals. The Ballpark project has already been approved for an exemplary performance ID credit under Transportation Management Plan for its plentiful access to public transportation and for not providing public parking.While the Ballpark team does anticipate some individual attendance at games (a portion of which may arrive by bicycle), there is no evidence to support the expectation of anywhere close to 2,000 cycling attendees. Indeed, the San Francisco Giants stadium provides a bicycle valet for 150 bicycles and is only currently storing up to 125 bicycles on game days.The Ballpark team feels providing an excessive amount of permanent storage at this time is contrary to the general underlying environmental intent of the credit. The production of these racks will require the use of materials - both raw and recycled - in addition to the energy that will be used to manufacture and transport the racks. If the San Francisco stadium is any indication, only about 6% of the 2,064 racks would be used.2,064 racks will also require a large amount of land to be set aside for this use, and on a compact urban infill site the Ballpark team does not feel providing racks in large excess of demand constitutes the highest and best use of the land.An alternative solution has been developed, one the Ballpark team feels bridges the gap between providing permanent storage capacity for 2,064 bicycles and our original proposal of 286.Alternative Solution:The Ballpark team proposes to continue with installation of 286 permanent bicycle storage racks and to provide an additional bicycle valet service on game days. This is a more flexible and environmentally sensitive solution to permanent racks, and can be quickly responsive to growing demand.We propose to model our Ballpark bicycle storage capacity both on that of the San Francisco stadium and on the LEED-EB Rating System. In addition to 286 storage spaces, the Ballpark will offer valet service initially for up to 150 bicycles. The WABA has agreed to provide valet service. The Ballpark owners have agreed to offer \'ride-to-the-game day\' promotions that will encourage the use of bicycle transportation through reduced price game tickets on certain dates. At special events such as this, the bicycle valet capacity would be increased beyond 150 to anticipate larger demand.The peak demand will be monitored and valet service capacity will be increased every season that there is an increase in peak usage so that the bicycle storage capacity is maintained at 125% of the peak demand for bicycle parking until a maximum bike storage capacity of 5% of the peak building users is reached (or 2,064).ConclusionThe unique nature of this project type requires a creative approach to this credit. We feel that by committing to providing a combination of permanent storage and a storage service that will enable Ballpark employees and visitors to bicycle to work and games, we are meeting the intent to reduce pollution and landscape development impacts from automobile use.

Ruling:

Given the particular nature of this project, the proposed Alternative Solution does meet the credit intent as it allows for capacity growth based on peak demand. This approach is applicable to stadiums and special event facilities only. Along with required credit documentation, please provide documentation demonstrating an ongoing bicycle valet service program (a signed contract for the service is acceptable) which includes stipulation for increased growth based on demand up to 2,064 bicycles.Please also provide a narrative which details how demand will be monitored and capacity increased over time, along with a description of how and where bicycle storage sufficient to accommodate up to 2,064 bicycles will be provided should there be that level of demand.Note that showers and changing facilities must be made available to all full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/23/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a Senior Assisted Living Facility registered under the LEED NC 2.2 rating system. In addition to the residential component it includes a restaurant, shop and dining room and will be staffed 24 hours a day with a maximum of 22 staff FTE occupants per shift. We are requesting a ruling excluding the requirement to provide covered bike racks for the residential occupants, whom are unable to bike due to physical limitations and/or health problems. Due to the specific characteristics of the residential population, the project team feels that it is impractical to provide covered bike storage for 15% of the residents, as calculated for SSc4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bike Storage and Changing Rooms. Previous CIR rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 9/14/2006 set a precedence to exclude certain populations from the bicycle storage requirements based upon the practicality of that population to take advantage of the bicycle storage. LEED for Schools also addresses the issue of physical inability and/or safety by limiting the bike rack requirement to students above third grade. To meet the intent of this credit we are proposing that we satisfy the requirements to serve the employees of the project and provide bicycle storage for 5% of the FTE and showers for 0.5% of the FTE and exclude the residential population from the calculation for bicycle storage.

Ruling:

The CIR is requesting that their project be exempted from the requirement for covered bicycle racks for 15% of residents. This request is based on the physical limitations of the residents at this senior assisted living facility and the assumption that they will not be riding bicycles with any regularity. The project has proposed to meet the credit by providing bicycle racks for 5% of the staff FTE, and showers for .5% of the staff FTE, with the residents entirely excluded from the calculations. Based on previous CIRs, especially the ruling dated 12/2/07 under SSc4.4, physically incapacitated residents can be excluded from credit calculations determining bicycle racks. However, in order for the credit requirements to be satisfied, the bicycle racks must be sized to accommodate 5% of both the FTE staff, and the peak transient occupancy including visitors. The proposal to size the showers for 0.5% of the FTE staff is appropriate for credit compliance. Please note that employee shower facilities must be separate from resident shower facilities. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
6/22/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project scope is unique in that the building owner is currently seeking certification under LEED Core & Shell for the overall base building tower, while also requiring all tenants to attain LEED for Commercial Interiors certification. Due to this unique scenario it is unclear how to address certain credit requirements for the Commercial Interiors projects when the tenants will be located within a Core & Shell building concurrently pursuing the same related credits, effectively making a LEED NC project. The CS project is 1.5M SF (mixed office/retail). We have a known occupancy for a portion of the tower and have calculated a default occupancy count for the remaining portion of the tower totaling 5,359 FTE Peak/4986 FTE, requiring 68 bike storage spaces and 25 showers/changing rooms. In an effort to provide the appropriate number of bike racks and changing rooms for both the CS and CI credit requirements, it is unclear how to avoid counting the tenants\' occupancy twice, thereby inflating the overall number of racks and changing rooms needed. As well, the credit calculation methodology differs among the two rating systems. Relative to bike racks the base building has provided 68 spaces which accounts for 3.5% of the total known and default occupancy of the building. CI requires bike storage be provided for 5% of the occupancy. We propose that all tenants may earn this credit by providing bike storage for the 1.5% of their occupancy which was not accounted for in the CS calculations. Relative to showers the CS project will have provided showers for 0.5% of the known and default FTE. CI requires that tenants provide showers for 0.625% of the occupants (equal to 1 per 8). Since the project is in essence the equivalent of a LEED NC project we propose that tenants be required to only provide showers for 0.5% of their occupants (as is also the new requirement in LEED ID+C 2009). The implication would be that the tenants whose known occupancy was accounted for in the CS calculation would not be required to add any new showers to earn LEED CI SSc3.2. For those (future) tenants who were accounted for using the default occupancy in the LEED CS calculation we propose that the requirement be to provide additional showers only if the actual occupancy is greater than the default used in the CS calculations. If the actual occupancy is greater we propose that the 0.5% rate be used in the calculation. This approach will allow the tenants to use the CS provided showers toward their count and will address any variations in occupancy density between actual and default. Please confirm if this is an acceptable approach for all tenants in this project. If this is not acceptable please define how a LEED CI tenant in a LEED CS building should calculate bikes/showers when the CS has already provided a percentage of these amenities.

Ruling:

The requirements of SSc4.2 under LEED CS and SSc3.2 under LEED CI are not incompatible and the relevant credit requirements must be met by each project in order to earn the credit requirements. Projects seeking compliance under LEED CI can make use of the bicycle racks and showers provided by the LEED CS project in their credit calculations so long as the bicycle racks and showers in question are only being counted toward that project and not being counted toward multiple projects seeking LEED CI certification. If the number of bicycle racks and showers provided by the LEED CS project is not sufficient to meet the credit requirements for the LEED CI project than the CI project team will need to supply additional amenities. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/1/2011
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

This is an inquiry about the calculation of the FTE in relation to our project in Zurich, Switzerland. In the LEED Reference Guide on page 53 the calculation of the FTE is based on a 8-hour working day. That means that an 8-hour occupant has an FTE value of 1.0. The standard working day in Switzerland contains 8.5 hours of work.In a FTE calculation on the basis that is provided in the LEED Reference Guide the normal working day of one single person would have the FTE value of 1.0625. As a consequence of the, in case of 1000 people fulltime staff this FTE calculation would have additional number of 63 FTE in comparion to an FTE value of 1.0.Is it possible to calculate the FTE value for this project with an 8.5 instead of 8 hour day, so that we would have the FTE value of 1.0 for a standard 8.5 hour-working day?

Ruling:

The project team has inquired if projects in Switzerland may use 8.5-hours as their working day instead of 8-hours as in the US. Each full-time employee based on Swiss and US labor laws works an 8.5-hour day, which includes a half-hour unpaid lunch break and two 15-minute paid breaks. In order to maintain the baseline for projects everywhere when calculating FTE occupancy, all Swiss projects, including those industries that have an overtime work culture for full-time employees, should still use the 8.0-hour work day in their FTE calculations. Applicable internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/23/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Under LEED NCv2.2, projects must provide adequate bike racks to serve 5% or more of all commercial and retail building users at peak periods of occupancy and shower and changing facilities for 0.5% of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) occupants. The credit also requires residential projects to provide 15% of residents with covered bike storage. Our project is a mixed use hotel, residential, retail and office building in New York City. We propose to provide: - Bike racks for at least 5% of the hotel and retail employees, retail customers and office tenants - Showers and changing facilities for at least 0.5% of the hotel and retail staff and office occupant FTE - Covered bike storage for at least 15% of residents - Hotel guests with information about where they can rent a bike for daily use We request exemption of the hotel guests from the onsite bike storage requirement as we do not believe they will bring bikes and it would be cost prohibitive to provide enough bike storage to serve 0.5% of them. The USGBC has previously ruled (SSc4.2 ruling dated 06/04/03) that an international airline terminal can meet the intent of this credit by providing bike racks, showers and changing facilities for the FTE staff occupancy exclusively, provided alternative transportation opportunities are maximized for transient occupants. In addition this would be extremely cost prohibitive based on the construction and real estate in New York City. Our project is located on 42nd Street, very near Times Square in midtown Manhattan. The primary modes of transportation around this busy retail, theatre and residential area are walking and subways. The project itself includes a new subway station that will lead pedestrians to 12 subway lines. The City\'s major bus terminal (Port Authority) is a block away from the project. The City\'s two major train stations are within walking distance, but hotel guests can also catch a pedicab, bus or subway from the project to reach them. We do not believe personal bicycles are a likely means of transportation for hotel guests (especially from the airport with luggage) to our project, and guests will have every means of reaching the hotel by public transportation. Out of town guests will be able to reach the project by subway, train or bus from all the major New Jersey and New York airports.

Ruling:

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

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/20/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our firm is currently working on a project designated as a port of entry from Mexico to the US. We are requesting a clarification on how occupants should be calculated in SSc4.2. CIR Ruling (9/14/2006) established that "Excluding a certain type of transient occupant from the required bicycle stall and shower calculations is permissible per previous v2.1 CIR Rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 8/7/2002. Please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from onsite storage facilities." These CIRs related to projects which were destination resorts and airline terminals. Our project, a US Port of Entry, has similar occupancy concerns that make it impractical to provide bicycle racks for all transient occupants. The vast majority of transients are typically crossing from Mexico into the US and are only passing through the facility. They consist of pedestrians or transients entering via automobile or motorcycles. If transients are commuting via bicycle they would typically not be spending time at the facility but merely passing through. This project anticipates achieving SSc4.1 (numerous bus lines within 1/4 mile and a rail line within 1/2 mile) and SSc4.3 and 4.4 (preferred parking for carpools and efficient vehicles). In addition to the previous credits this project will also obtain credit for SSc4.2. This project has 120 FTE and 22,720 transients. Using the above CIR Ruling, the occupant calculation would require 1,142 Bicycle Racks. However, in light of the fact that we believe the majority of the transients would simply be "passing through" this calculation seems excessive for this project. Our project team has identified the following option to address the intent of SSc4.2 and we would like to get direction from the USGBC on the following option: Provide bicycle storage for 5% FTE Showers will be provided to meet the requirement of 0.5% of FTE staff. The project team feels that this approach meets the intent of SSc4.2 for this type of facility. We respectfully request that the USGBC confirm that our approach is valid or provide clear guidance on how our assumptions should be modified to meet the intent of SSc4.2.

Ruling:

Providing bicycle storage for 5% of FTE and showers for 0.5% of FTE is an appropriate approach given the project circumstances and that other transportation credits are being pursued to accommodate the FTE and transient occupants. The exclusion of occupants who are passing through only to cross the border is in line with previous CIR rulings. When submitting the credit please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from onsite storage facilities. Applicable Internationally; Mexico.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
9/14/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting a ruling upon which occupants shall be included in the bicycle and shower calculations for SSc4.2. A previous CIR Ruling for LEED-NC 2.1 (dated 06/04/03) stated that an international airline terminal could meet the intent of this credit by providing adequate bicycle spaces and changing/showering facilities for only the staff employees if the calculation included all staff and the project maximized alternative transportation opportunities for transient occupants. Our project, a large destination resort, has similar occupancy conditions to the above-referenced CIR Ruling that make it impractical to provide bicycle racks for the transient occupants. Our project contains the following uses: hotels, condominiums, retail shops, conference center, theater, gaming, and restaurants. As a result, we propose to identify three types of occupants in this project - employees, condominium residents, and transient guests. Our transient guests travel from around the country and the world and arrive via the airport or long distance car & bus trips. These guests are served by a variety of alternative transportation services such as monorails, city buses, a tourist trolley, and hotel shuttle buses. Consistent with the resort\'s commitment to integrating environmental sustainability into the project, we will be making a substantial investment in supporting bicycling. We are planning to provide over 300 bicycle spaces and the associated number of showers, based on our employee counts. The impact opportunity is substantial. Since the commuting characteristics of this project are similar to the airport terminal situation described in the previous CIR, with the addition of a residential component, please confirm that we can achieve this credit by providing bicycle spaces for 5% of peak on-site employees, showers for 0.5% of peak on-site employees and bicycle spaces for 15% of condominium residents.

Ruling:

Excluding a certain type of transient occupants from the required bicycle stall and shower calculations is permissible per previous v2.1 CIR Rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 8/7/2002. Please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from on site storage facilities. It is not acceptable to automatically exclude all transient visitors from these calculations as it is reasonable to expect that some of the visitors to the retail shops, conference center, theater, and gaming facilities could potentially arrive on a bicycle, therefore please be certain to include these areas, when appropriate, in the bicycle stall calculations. The proposed strategy to provide bicycle stalls for 15% of condominium residents is consistent with credit requirements for residential buildings. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
8/7/2002
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

It appears that the LEED criteria may be developed for a more generic office situation and our college campus operates very differently. There are several extenuating factors. Unlike most similar higher education institutions, Colorado College has maintained a relatively constant student population as mandated in the school\'s educational charter. Therefore, an additional building does not imply more students although may indicate additional educators and support staff. Colorado College is a small residential campus requiring ~75% of the students to live in campus housing (all students except seniors must live on campus), which is on contiguous property and within easy walking distance, ~ 1/4 mile. A portion of the professors are also visitors, living in campus housing during their instructional Block (this reduction has not been entered into the calculation). The use of automobiles to attend daily classes is minimal, due to the very short distance. Colorado College operates educationally under the "Block Plan" where only one class is taken at a time for a three and one half week duration in a dedicated Classroom; generally, there is only one class per Classroom per day. The actual usage of the space as compared to the FTE (full time equivalent) students is realistically less than one when considering the primary classroom session generally is in the morning (this reduction has not been entered into the calculation). A maximum of 25 students is allowed per class, so this number is used in the following calculations but the actual students per class will average less (this reduction has not been entered into the calculation). The following numbers are based on actual Classroom and Office room counts for the Tutt Science Center. --437 students count or ~110 adjusted students count when only 25% arrive from the surrounding community --35 professors and support staff when assuming 100% arrive from the surrounding community --437 + 35 equal 472 total building population --110 + 35 equal 145 adjusted total building population Our question is, can we use the 472 people as our total building population, while using the "adjusted" or "commuter" population for determining showering facilities and parking requirements? This would mean that 472 would be used to determine bike rack needs, which seems appropriate as the on-campus students may also ride bikes for a short distance, while 145 would be used as the building population when determining showering facilities, number of parking spaces, and also the number of alternative refueling stations. For example, using the total population for the bicycle storage capacity would give .05 x 472 equals ~24. Considering the short travel distance for most, shower usage should be minimal and the 145 adjusted building population seems realistic. The resulting count of .05 x 145 / 8 equal ~ 1 shower should be a more accurate appraisal of the potential use.

Ruling:

Showers Per previous inquiry, 0153-SSc42-081701, the LEED Steering Committee has ruled: "Although, transients are required to calculate the bike storage capacity, they shall not be required to be included in the occupant count for calculating the number of showers/changing areas. Transients are defined as visitors to the building for less than 7 hours." Therefore, providing showers based on full time staff or staff FTE will meet the requirements of this credit. Parking If the campus master plan is designed such that 75% of students do not drive to class, and essentially have parking already provided for them adjacent to their housing, their parking needs are already met. The remaining 25% of students and 100% of staff can be used as the \'occupancy\' to calculate required parking and alternative fueling stations. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/2/2014
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Please provide clarification on requirements for residential Interior Design and Construction projects pursuing SSc3.2: Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms credit.

Ruling:

Residential Interior Design and Construction projects need to fulfill the following requirements in order to achieve SSc3.2: Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms credit:
• For projects located in completely residential base buildings, the project must provide 15% covered bicycle parking. All residential users must be considered in these calculations.
• For projects that are located in mixed-use (non-residential/residential) base buildings, the project must provide bicycle parking based on the users, by splitting the user groups and providing 15% covered bicycle parking for residents and 5% for users of commercial space, including the required showers, as already outlined in the credit language.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
6/20/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

This CIR is in reference to FTE calculations for a multi-floor hotel in a high-density urban setting. FTE calculation for full-time and part-time employees of the hotel can be calculated using actual numbers. Transients as defined by the USGBC are visitors to a building for less than 7 hours. However, this does not always apply to the variable number of guests or the variable amount of time guests will stay in a hotel on a daily basis. The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA) is the sole national representing body of all sectors in the lodging industry. The AH&LA has lodging occupancy tracked on a weekly basis (research performed by Smith Travel Research). The AH&LA 2006 annual report calculates the year-end lodging occupancy at 63.4%. In a CIR request dated 10/27/2005 (ruling dated 12/9/2005), occupancy for residential projects allows for FTE calculations based on number of bedrooms: 2 regular occupants for a one-bedroom unit, 3 for a two-bedroom unit, and so on. Therefore, since occupancy rates are highly variable for hotels, can FTE be calculated based on the number of rooms x average occupancy/room (e.g. 2) in a hotel multiplied by an average lodging occupancy percent (per the AH&LA) to obtain the transient occupant calculation? For example: 200 units x 2 guests/unit = 400 total guests; 400 guests x 60% (average of the AH&LA information) = 240 calculated transient occupants. This number would then be the transient occupant count added to the calculated FTE of employees for the occupant value for LEED calculations.

Ruling:

Your FTE approach seems reasonable based on the variable transient occupancy of a hotel, and you are encouraged to utilize it. Please note that previous CIRs have ruled that certain transient populations can be excluded from the calculations in determining the number of required bike storage spaces and showers for this credit. Please refer to NCv2.1 SSc4.2 CIR ruling dated 9/14/2006 for additional guidance. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
2/12/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Tenant is relocating to a landmark San Francisco high-rise building with limited space for additional bicycle racks and storage. Building management policy is to allow tenants to take bicycles up to their floor via a service elevator through the basement garage since it can accommodate only about half of the necessary bike storage facilities in the garage (48 bike racks for approximately 1,800 total building employees). Since the same building has no showers, and it would be a physical and financial challenge to construct them within the tenant\'s space, the tenant will purchase basic club memberships at a physical fitness/health club offering lockers and showers located within 200 yards for all employees riding their bicycles to work. These memberships will be free to the employees. Documentation will consist of letters from building management and tenant confirming bike access and floor storage policies; copy of agreement with fitness/health club; and site map indicating physical distance from tenant\'s building entrance to the fitness/health club facility. We believe that this strategy will meet the intent of the credit by taking advantage of existing facilities and support policies without expending additional valuable construction resources.

Ruling:

Yes, the project\'s approach to achieving this credit appears to meet the credit intent and requirements. This project will earn this credit provided that the team (1) provide calculations that 5% of the FTE Occupancy has access to secure storage area(s) for bicycles; (2) submit a site and/or floor plan showing the location and type of the bike storage facilities as well as a narrative of how these facilities will be secured per the credit requirements (the storage facilities can be in the garage, on the tenant floor, or a combination of the two); and (3) per the LEED CI v2.0 SSc3.2 ruling dated 9/28/2005 and the CI Reference Guide, the approach to providing showers is acceptable as long as all the provisions described within that CIR are met. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/30/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting a ruling about how occupants should be calculated in SSc4.2 for our project, which is a professional hockey arena. A previous CIR Ruling (9/14/2006) established that "Excluding a certain type of transient occupants from the required bicycle stall and shower calculations is permissible per previous v2.1 CIR Rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 8/7/2002. Please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from onsite storage facilities." These CIRs related to projects which were destination resorts and airline terminals. Our project, a professional hockey arena, has similar occupancy concerns that make it impractical to provide bicycle racks for all transient occupants. Because the largest events (hockey games) are held late at night and because many event attendees are coming from far away, it is much more likely for attendees to carpool and use public transit than to ride a bicycle. The project anticipates achieving SSc4.1 (numerous bus lines within 1/4 mile and a rail line within 1/2 mile) and SSc4.3 and 4.4 (preferred parking for carpools and efficient vehicles). In addition, for SSc4.2, the project will be building a new bike path to encourage bicycle use, especially during daytime events. Thus, we have developed ways to address both daytime and nighttime events, as described below: For daytime events, our project team has identified two options to address the intent of SSc4.2 that we would like to get direction from the USGBC on: 1. Provide 100 secure bike racks for 5% of the FTE staff plus 5% of the transient occupants who attend daytime events. Peak occupancy during daytime events is expected to be for tradeshows that occupy the main hockey floor space. For this use, occupancy is expected to be about 2000 people for the peak event time. This figure represents about 300 operation/vendors, 1685 attendees and 15 staff. Thus 100 bike racks represent 5% of this occupancy to satisfy the intent of credit SSc4.2. OR 2. Provide 50 secure bike racks for general-use occupancy and require the Events Operator to set up a secure bike corral for at least 50 additional bike racks for any event that anticipates attendance in excess of 1000 people for its peak occupancy time. Nighttime events will be larger, up to 6000 people (peak concert); but as noted above, late egress will discourage bicycle ridership such that peak use will be less than daytime events. For nighttime events, we feel it is only reasonable to expect attendees to ride a bicycle if they live within 5 miles of the arena. The website CommuterChoice.com notes that the average bicycle commute in the US is about 2 miles, so we feel that this allowance of a 5 mile bicycle commute to the arena at night is an aggressive expectation. Our transportation consultant has estimated that about 7% of attendees live within 5 miles of the arena. Thus, for the maximum event of 6000 people, the number of attendees living within 5 miles of the arena would be 420 people. Staff/vendors at this event would be 315, making a total of 735. The 100 or 50 bike racks that would be provided for the project thus represent respectively 13% and 7% of the nighttime occupants who might be expected to commute by bicycle to the event. Showers will be provided to meet the requirement of 0.5% of FTE staff for all events (both daytime and nighttime). The project team feels that this night-time approach and both the daytime options meet the intent of SSc4.2 for this type of facility. We request that the USGBC either confirm that our approach is valid for both daytime event options and nighttime events, or provide clear guidance on how our assumptions should be modified to meet the intent of SSc4.2.

Ruling:

The CIR is requesting clarification on calculation of occupancy for a large sports arena in order to provide the appropriate number of bicycle racks. The team has provided multiple assumptions and calculation methodologies and is requesting guidance on which approaches should be used. 1. The team has presented assumptions regarding which transient occupants can be expected to use bicycles to reach the event. The team assumes that visitors coming to the site at night are less likely to ride bikes than those coming during the day due to safety concerns, and therefore more there will be a higher demand for bike parking in the day, even though peak occupancy is lower. This is potentially a reasonable assumption, given that the project team provides clear information on the types of day and night uses, the hours of operation, the peak occupancies of each use and other relevant justifying information or data. 2. The team has stated that visitors living within a five mile radius of the site are the most likely to travel by bike, and therefore bikes should be provided for local visitors only. Focusing on local visitors is an acceptable approach for calculating transient occupants but not regular occupants. Additional information would be required to support the use of a 5-mile radius, as well as to support the calculation of the percentage of visitors within this radius. Detailed calculations from the transportation consultant or other relevant data would be required in order to use this approach, which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Reviewers will take into consideration building type and program, location, bicycle network and other variables in evaluating the merits of this approach. 3. The team has presented two strategies for providing bicycle storage—either permanent secure bike parking or valet service for bike storage. Either approach is acceptable. If a valet service is being used, refer to the requirements included in NC v2.2, SSc4.2 CIR ruling 10/24/2007.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/20/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our building is located on a 1,275-acre university campus among 79 buildings with dozens more in the planning stages. The university has 1,065 support staff, 750 faculty (or 1,435 FTE) and 23,464 peak-period transient students/visitors. Adequate bicycle storage can be easily provided for each building, but providing showers and changing rooms is our challenge. Based on the number of FTE\'s, eight showers would need to be distributed among each of the 79 buildings (see related AGMBC notes). The 200-yard distance maximum would not be possible to maintain for the eight showers required (based on 1,435 FTE\'s) distributed in zones among 79 buildings and therefore the number needed to comply with the requirement for each building would significantly increase by a factor of four times or more. This is not a feasible strategy for the university and also not a good use of resources. However, there are two centrally located facilities on campus with showers to which staff and faculty have unlimited access. The Indoor Recreation Facility has 12 shower heads in 4 areas and the Field House has 143 shower heads in 9 areas. These facilities are linked together with 5 free bus/shuttle lines that operate in 7 to 8 minute intervals between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm. This strategy is analogous to the compliance path for credit EAc4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access, which allows the use of shuttles to connect to primary bus and rail systems. Please confirm that the use of centrally located showers accessible by shuttles is an acceptable alternative to the 200-yard maximum.

Ruling:

The project is requesting that showers farther than 200 yards from the building entrance be acceptable because of the free campus shuttle service available. This is not an acceptable alternative compliance path. In order to make bicycle commuting a viable and attractive option for building occupants the showers must be within 200 yards of the building entrance. Please note that the project need only provide showers for 0.5% of FTE of the project itself, not the entire campus. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
6/25/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting approval of an alternate compliance path with regards to the quantity of showers required to comply with Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2 in the LEED NCv2.2 rating system. Our project, located in Cairo, Egypt, provides areas within the building for prayer and ablution areas adjacent to it used for ritual cleansing before prayer time. Each ablution area, one each for males and females, will have four sinks that are actually shower-like faucets on a wall above a trough for a total of eight sinks. We will send a photo example separately. There are no walls or enclosures around each of the sinks, although there are separate ablution areas for men and women. Users remain robed while using the sinks, except for socks, shoes and jackets. Users will typically roll up their sleeves and using a washcloth wash their arms, armpits, face, hair, feet and lower legs. While these ablution areas are used for religious practice, it is common and socially acceptable to use them for general washing as well. Furthermore, social norms do not dictate full daily washings that are typical of American culture, making "sponge" bathing a more common practice for personal hygiene for the majority of the population. We are proposing that each bathing fixture in each ablution area be counted as an individual shower, in our case eight in total. In order to fulfill the need of all occupants of the building, four regular showers, two for each gender, will also be provided in the building for occupants that wish to use a full shower and changing facility. Our building has an FTE of 1080, which requires 5.4 showers, or 3 for each gender. We believe that access to the 4 showers and 8 ablution sinks meets the intent of the credit while also being more appropriate for the social customs of the culture. Is this approach acceptable?

Ruling:

The project is located in Egypt and is seeking confirmation on whether the use of ablution sinks can be considered towards achievement of this credit. Based on the specific local religious and social customs, the use of ablution sinks can be deemed comparable to the use of showers, and can be included in the total number of showers required for credit compliance. However, in cases like this, at a minimum, 50% of the required number of showers must be provided by full showers/changing facilities, to ensure that all occupant needs are adequately met. The project team should include justification for this alternative approach in the LEED submission, clearly demonstrating that the majority of the building occupants adhere to these religious and social customs, and the associated use of the ablution sinks. Applicable Internationally; Egypt.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
3/22/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

My question isn\'t necessarily about Credit 4.2. It\'s mostly about the definition of the site boundary. I have reviewed previous CIRs and from that I learned the site definition needs to be consistent with all credits.My project is two adjacent buildings which will be certified separately; their construction schedules are the same.Here\'s my question. If there are showers in one building does the second building need showers also? It is within 200 yards of other building. Again, both buildings are seeking LEED certification and their schedules are the same.A second related question relates to SS Credit 6.1. We\'re considering a cistern. Do both buildings need one to get the credit for both? Obviously if we only install one cistern to handle both buildings the cistern will be outside the site boundary for one of the buildings. Or do we need to install a cistern for each building so that cistern is located within site boundary for both?

Ruling:

The showers in one of your project buildings can be included in the credit calculations for both buildings, assuming the showers are within 200 yards of the entrance to the adjacent building. To demonstrate achievement for both LEED projects, be sure to demonstrate that the number of showers supports the occupancy for both buildings combined. The same logic applies to features such as a stormwater cistern. If the cistern is constructed to serve the needs of the building/site area in question, it can count towards credit achievement. Essentially it is appropriate to consider your project a campus situation and share infrastructure, as long as each building meets the performance requirements. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/1/2012
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 14 story residential building located in MD. Of the building is 152,740 sf with 150,340 sf of residential and 2,400 sf of ground floor retail. The main building occupants will be the 343 residents. The retail space, which for this project\'s purposes is core and shell space, will be occupied by an estimated 5 retail employees, and 19 retail transients.Our question is in regard to the shower requirement of SSc4.2. Given that the retail space comprises only 1.5% of the total floor area of the project, and will be served by only 5 employees, we propose that the project not be required to provide showers and changing facilities for the retail employees. The project will provide bike racks for the residents (343 residents x 15% = 52 bikes), as well as retail employees and retail transients (24 retail employees/transients x 5% = 2 bikes).To support this proposal, we draw on a previous CIR Ruling dated 4/4/2005 which stated that, "If the mixed-use building is less than 10% commercial square feet, the entire building can be considered residential and adhere to the residential requirements."

Ruling:

The Project Team is inquiring whether the shower and changing facility requirements of SSc4.2 can be exempt for the retail area of a mixed use building where the retail area comprises approximately 1.6% of the total building area. For guidance on this issue, the project should refer to LI 10209 which describes how mixed-use projects with a nonresidential square footage of less than 10% and no greater than 5,000 square feet can document credit compliance. Regarding the use of Retail Supplement compliance paths, since rating systems are comprehensive, substituting the Retail Supplement\'s credit requirements for parts of a building project is granted on a case-by-case basis. Given the allowance provided by LI XXXX, it would not be an appropriate to allow additional approaches to documenting credit achievement.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
3/10/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are requesting a ruling on an alternative approach to calculating required bicycle storage for SS Credit 4.2 for a professional hockey arena. Occupancy for the facility is expected to be as follows: FTE: 115 Peak event staff: 700 Peak spectators: 18,500 Peak players: 25 Total: 19,340 Bicycle storage to serve all guests and staff who are likely to be at the arena during a sold-out game, would amount to 967 storage spaces if the credit requirements were followed as written. However, for reasons similar to those presented in the Credit Interpretation Requests dated 9/12/2007 and 10/5/2007 the project team feels that it is impractical to impose the same bicycle storage rules for this facility as for office buildings, namely: - Transient occupants tend to attend sporting and entertainment events in groups rather than as individuals. - This project has ample public transportation within 1/4 mile of the site. - The largest events occur in the evenings in the winter, times during which cycling is not ideal for safety and comfort reasons. - Similar facilities, such as the SF Giants described in the 9/12/2007 CIR, have demonstrated that current demand for bicycle storage is significantly lower than what SS Credit 4.2 requires. - The land required to provide permanent bicycle storage that has little likelihood of being used is not an ideal usage of the site. The project team proposes two ways of providing bicycle storage quantity that will adequately serve the realistically expected current demand for this facility while allowing for capacity growth based on peak demand. 1. To establish the current demand for transient occupant bicycle storage, statistics from a local non-profit cyclist organization whose mission is "to establish [a] city that is increasingly safe, accessible, and friendly to bicycle transportation" will be used. This organization states that the current rate of commuting by cyclists to the arena neighborhood is 0.8%. Applying this statistic to the peak occupancy stated above, 154 bicycle storage spaces would be needed for events. To accommodate 125% of this estimated demand, a total of 194 bicycle storage spaces would be provided using permanent and/or valet bicycle storage. Over time, peak demand will be monitored such that bicycle storage provided always exceeds demand by 25% until the maximum bike storage capacity of 5% of peak building users (or 967) is met. OR 2. To establish the current demand for bicycle, the team management will survey staff and season ticket holders to determine: a. The number (and percentage) that currently travels to events via bicycle b. The number (and percentage) who would consider traveling to events via bicycle if secure storage were provided at the arena Based on the survey results, enough permanent and/or valet bicycle storage will be provided to accommodate 125% of current demand. Each season, peak demand will be monitored such that bicycle storage provided always exceeds demand by 25% until the maximum bike storage capacity of 5% of peak building users (or 967) is met. For both approaches above, shower/changing facilities will be made available for 0.5% of all FTE occupants. If a valet service is used it will be implemented considering the requirements in the CIR ruling dated 10/24/2007.

Ruling:

The project team is requesting guidance on two alternative approaches to calculating the number of bi-cycles to be accommodated with secure bicycle storage for a professional hockey arena. The project has proposed 2 approaches, both resulting in the provision of 125% of the current estimated bicycle parking and storage needs, with regular monitoring to ensure available bicycle parking and storage exceeds demand by 25% until the credit requirement— providing bicycle storage for 5% of the building occupants—has been met. Approach 1 is based on the based on statistics gathered from a local biking advocacy organization, whereas Approach 2 is based on a survey of staff and season ticket holders. Either strategy is acceptable, as long as documentation of the process includes detailed calculations, and a description of how the current bike capacity was determined. The project team must also show how the bicycle storage will be monitored and demonstrate the capacity for future expansion exists, should it be needed, as stated in LEED NC 2.2, SSc4.2 CIR ruling 10/24/2007. The alternate strategy outlined is acceptable for large special events facilities only, because of the particular nature of these projects.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
6/7/2004
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

There are a number of credit inquiries that relate to the shower requirements at college or university campuses, and as a result, the USGBC has expanded the proximity of changing/shower facilities to the project site from being required on the project site, to being required within 100 yards of the building, to the current standard of being required within 200 yards of the building. This credit inquiry seeks to have Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2 awarded by demonstrating that the intent of the credit is being fully achieved even if the specific distance limit is not. Our project is the renovation of the S.T. Dana Building Renovation, home of the School of Natural Resources & Environment at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dana is located in the central campus area facing onto the University\'s main quadrangle, know as the Diag. This area of the campus is served by a very large recreational and athletic facility, The Central Campus Recreational Building (CCRB). As an athletic facility, the CCRB provides a substantial number of locker rooms and showers for use by faculty, staff and students on the Central Campus. The CCRB is located roughly 300 yards from the Dana Building. It is easily within a 5 minute walk or a quarter mile of the building, which is the maximum distance LEED allows for walking to a building from public transit. This arrangement currently serves the biking population at the Dana Building with success as demonstrated by the transit survey conducted during the LEED project implementation. A transit survey conducted in April 2002 determined that the current biking population of the Dana Building exceeds the minimum of 5% required for this credit by 22%. - Number of respondents: 171 or 41% of the peak occupant load. (21 faculty; 39 staff; 111 students) - Number of respondents who bike from home to campus: 47 or 27%. Without showers in the building, this exceeds the LEED target by 22%. - Number of respondents who use their bikes to travel around campus during the day: 32. - The survey asked "if you had access to showers, would you be more likely to commute to school/work by bicycle or foot?" 124 or 72% said No. The transit study further determined that the average commute to campus is 6.1 miles and the average commute during the day around campus is 1.2 miles. The peak load occurs during the academic school year, September through May. The climate of Ann Arbor, Michigan, is such that showering after relatively short bike commutes is not necessary, like it might be in a southern and hot, humid campus. The minimum required number of bicycle racks is met within the LEED project boundary; numerous additional racks are provided within 200 yards of the building. The transit survey clearly demonstrates that the intent of this credit has been met at the Dana Building, even though the specific distance requirements are not met. Would this credit be awarded on these grounds? We also request confirmation that our peak occupant load and non-transient occupant load calculations are appropriate. They are as follows. 53 Staff (8 hr/day) = 53 Non-Transients and 53 FTE Occupants (peak load) 57 Faculty (8 hr/day) = 57 Non-Transients and 57 FTE Occupants (peak load) 81 PhD Students (6 hr/day) = 0 Non-Transients and 61 FTE Occupants (peak load) 185 Master (Except LA) Students (4 hr/day) = 0 Non-Transients and 93 FTE Occupants (peak load) 235 Undergraduate Students (2 hr/day) = 0 Non-Transients and 59 FTE Occupants (peak load) 60 Master of Landscape Architecture Students (8 hr/day) = 60 Non-Transients and 60 FTE Occupants (peak load) 29 LS&A (4th Floor) (8 hr/day)= 29 Non-Transients and 29 FTE Occupants (peak load) 700 Total = 199 Non-Transients and 411 FTE Occupants (peak load) Based on 411 FTE Occupants (peak load), secure slots are needed for 21 bicycles (5% min). Based on 199 Non-Transients, two showers are needed.

Ruling:

The transit survey provides clear evidence that there is a sizable bicycling community at the campus, and sufficient bicycle racks have been provided for these cyclists. However, based on the credit requirements and previous CIRs on this issue, the showers that are located 300 yards from the project unfortunately cannot be used to capture this point. Your calculation methodology used to determine the number of FTE building occupants and non-transient occupants is acceptable and consistent with guidelines provided by previous CIRs for this, including the ruling dated 8/7/2002. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/27/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project scope is unique in that the building owner will also be the primary tenant of building and is currently seeking certification under LEED Core & Shell for the overall base building tower, while simultaneously pursuing LEED for Commercial Interiors for the one-half portion within the building they will occupy. In this scenario it is unclear exactly how to address certain credit requirements for a Commercial Interiors project when the space will be located within a Core & Shell building concurrently pursuing the same related credits. In an effort to provide the appropriate number of bike racks and changing rooms for both the CS and CI credit requirements, it is unclear how to avoid counting our clients known occupancy twice, thereby inflating the overall number of racks and changing rooms needed. As well, the credit calculation methodology differs among the two rating systems. For the LEED CS credit requirements we have calculated the required number of bike racks/changing facilities for the entire building, which includes the LEED CI project space. Next, calculations for LEED CI are then factored, based on 5% of occupancy. However we disagree with this number since the known occupancy of the LEED CI project has already been included in the LEED CS calculation and therefore to a certain extent (3.5%) have already been accounted for. As a reasonable alternative we suggest the CI calculation methodology for bike storage be revised for this project to aptly address the 5% requirement. In other words, calculate an additional 1.5% based on occupancy. In addition, CI calculates showers based on number of bikers (1 per 8) whereas CS calculates showers based on 0.5% of FTE. Since showers have already been included for the CS calculation (which was based on total occupancy of the building) then the CI occupants have already been accommodated for changing facilities at 0.5%. Accordingly, in this scenario the addition of changing facilities would not be necessary. With this, please confirm that both (CS and CI) projects will be able to earn the credit.

Ruling:

The approach described for determining the number of bicycle storage and shower facilities for both the CS and CI projects appears reasonable. For determining bicycle storage, 3.5% of the FTE is accounted for under CS and an additional 1.5% has been added to allow for the requirement of 5% of building occupants under CI. For determining the number of showers, the CS calculation has been used which takes into account the FTE of the CI space. Please ensure that a consistent FTE is used across all the LEED credits and that it takes into account the whole base building. FTE should be determined by using the CS guidelines for the general office and retail space for the undeveloped portion of the building in addition to the known FTE of the CI space. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
3/21/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

The intent of this credit is to reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. Pacific Garden Mission (PGM), a homeless shelter for homeless men and women in Chicago, is proposing an alternate calculation for the required bicycle storage capacity for this facility. PGM has four types of occupants: Transient-homeless; Program-people, Resident-staff and Commuting-staff. The Transient-homeless are the primary occupants. Averaging about 800 people, they come and go nightly with only what they can carry in bags, suitcases or backpacks. They certainly do not have cars or bicycles to use and/or bring to PGM. They stay temporarily at PGM-not long enough to qualify as residents or to enable them to even consider acquiring a bicycle. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to include them in the calculating the required amount of bicycle storage. We propose to not require bicycle storage for the Transient-homeless population at the facility. Program-people are homeless people who are enrolled in training/education programs at PGM. The average program person resides 45 days before moving on. These 140 people are not long-term residents but some may have the opportunity to acquire a bicycle during their 45 day stay. Most likely it would be a used bicycle that would be kept outside. We propose to allocate outside bike storage for 5% of the Program-people. (140 x 5% = 7 outside spaces). Resident-staff work and reside at PGM. Of the sixty (60) total staff, forty (40) are Resident-staff that live at the facility and twenty (20) commute. The Resident-staff typically stay for 2 to 3 years and are therefore able to own bicycles. As such, the project team proposes to calculate the amount of bicycle storage for Resident-staff as detailed by the LEED Reference Guide for a residential facility. This means that covered bicycle storage for 15% of these occupants must be provided. (40 x 15% = 6 covered spaces) For Commuting staff, the need for bicycle storage for staff will be calculated as detailed by the LEED Reference Guide for a commercial facility. This means that bicycle storage for 5% of these occupants will be provided, plus separate showering facilities as per the LEED Reference Guide. (20 x 5% = 1 outside space) In summary, the proposed changes are to: 1) Not allocate bicycle storage for the Transient-Homeless population since they do not have, nor is it practical for them to have, bicycles; 2) Allocate outside bicycle racks for 5% of the Program-People. 3) The resulting proposed required amount of bicycle storage and the actual storage in the design are summarized as follows: Occupant Type #Occupants Typical Duration of Stay Type storage % of occupants served # of bikes stored Transient-homeless 800 1-2 days overnight N.A. 0% 0 Program-people 140 45 days overnight Open 5% 7 Resident staff 40 2 to 3 years Covered 15% 6 Commuting staff 20 One 8-hour shift/day Open 5% 1 Type storage # bicycles stored # bicycles stored # extra spaces Proposed Requirement In The Design In the Design Open 8 18 10 Covered 6 7 1 Note that the design does call for a number of extra spaces that could be allocated as needed among the all the various occupants. Please let us know if this alternative method for calculating the requirements of SS Credit 4.2 is acceptable.

Ruling:

The applicant is requesting clarification about how bicycle parking requirements pertain to overnight homeless residents and longer-term homeless residents in a homeless shelter for homeless men and women in Chicago. Given the specific circumstances of this project, the proposed approach of exempting the overnight homeless residents from bicycle parking requirements is appropriate. However, the longer term Program-people must be included under the residential requirement of covered bicycle parking for 15% of occupants, as these occupants reside in the building and bicycle use may be offsetting car, bus or other transit trips. The proposed calculations for resident staff and commuting staff are appropriate. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
5/13/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

This CIR is in reference to FTE calculations for a multi-floor hotel in a high-density urban setting. FTE calculation for full-time and part-time employees of the hotel can be calculated using actual numbers. Transients as defined by the USGBC are visitors to a building for less than 7 hours. However, this does not always apply to the variable number of guests or the variable amount of time guests will stay in a hotel on a daily basis. The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA) is the sole national representing body of all sectors in the lodging industry. The AH&LA has lodging occupancy tracked on a weekly basis (research performed by Smith Travel Research). The AH&LA 2006 annual report calculates the year-end lodging occupancy at 63.4%. In a CIR request dated 10/27/2005 (ruling dated 12/9/2005), occupancy for residential projects allows for FTE calculations based on number of bedrooms: 2 regular occupants for a one-bedroom unit, 3 for a two-bedroom unit, and so on. Therefore, since occupancy rates are highly variable for hotels, can FTE be calculated based on the number of rooms x average occupancy/room (e.g. 2) in a hotel multiplied by an average lodging occupancy percent (per the AH&LA) to obtain the transient occupant calculation? For example: 200 units x 2 guests/unit = 400 total guests; 400 guests x 60% (average of the AH&LA information) = 240 calculated transient occupants. This number would then be the transient occupant count added to the calculated FTE of employees for the occupant value for LEED calculations.

Ruling:

Your FTE approach seems reasonable based on the variable transient occupancy of a hotel, and you are encouraged to utilize it. Please note that previous CIRs have ruled that certain transient populations can be excluded from the calculations in determining the number of required bike storage spaces and showers for this credit. Please refer to CIR ruling dated 9/14/2006 for additional guidance. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes

LEEDuser expert

Marilyn Specht

Integral group
Principal, US Sustainability Consulting Lead

See all LEEDuser forum discussions about this credit » Unsubscribe from discussions about CI-2009 SSc3.2