We are going for Exemplary Performance since we have 5 qualifying bus lines. Total (weekday) stops equals exactly 200, so we're good there. The potential problem is that 4 of the 5 lines are "A" and "B" variations, that is, the lines servicing our site are routes 20, 45, 45A, 79A, 79B. We view the A's and B's as separate routes, as they differ due to skipping stops for commuting purposes. Will the reviewers agree?
One more complication is the documentation. Unfortunately, the transit authority publishes the A & B schedules together, so documentation-wise, I will only have 3 maps/timetables to upload, despite 5 separate routes (the maps do indicate the differing routes, though). This complicates filling out the table in the LEED Online form, since I'm not able to distinguish between A & B stops - they are grouped together in the timetable.
I have considered listing all 5 lines separately in the form, and just including zeros for the odd A and B trip counts - hoping it'll be obvious to the reviewer once they see the maps and timetable - any better ideas? Maybe split the trip count 50/50 between A & B lines?
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED SpecialistSERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1976 thumbs up
June 6, 2011 - 2:00 pm
Jill,
You might look at the intent of the exemplary performance requirements as twofold: provide more frequent service, and serve a greater area.
I'm not sure the A and B variants would count as two separate lines if the buses follow exactly the same geographic route. It could be argued that although the stop skipping reduces the travel time, it doesn't seem to serve a greater area. I think the intent of requiring 4 or more routes for exemplary performance is to serve a greater geographic area than would be served by two or three routes. If the A and B route stops are sufficiently far apart or serve different streets during part of their route, you might be able to demonstrate that they serve different riders, and thus a greater area. Does that make sense?