Bus Frequency

Sean,

It sounds like you are in between Option 1 and Option 2, but it would seem more likely to achieve via Option 1.

Option 1 - it sounds like your diverted bus route may achieve compliance as it would assume the role of a shuttle per several LEED Interpretations and it connects to a rail station. The diverted bus route would need to be in place prior to your Construction Review. The time frames of the diverted bus route also sound like they would comply with what LEED refers to as the"most frequent commuting hours". The rail station would also have to be within 2 miles from the shuttle stop at your project.

The no Sunday service on the shuttle may be an issue - I have received some interesting comments lately about having consistent bus/shuttle service 7 days a week. You may want to submit a CIR to verify as I feel it may depend on who your reviewer is.

You may also pursue via Option 2 using the Shuttle in the same way as your 2nd bus line but you would still have the no Sunday issue.

Hope this helps.

Is the building open on the weekends? Who cares if there is service to and from a building that will be locked ;)

That is what our argument is, the public transportation system on our project doesn't offer the same breadth of service on the weekends and it does provide service on Sunday just not to the same extent as M-F. If your project's main operating hours are M-F why does the weekend have to have the same extent of service? The reference guide language only speaks to "the most frequent commuting hours". One thing we are looking at is all the LI's written on this subject as well as addendum - we cannot find anything that references the language "7 days a week". We are still in discussions with GBCI on this issue. You can see where I posted a question on this subject back in July. I will follow up once we have resolution one way or another - hopefully soon.

Donald, was your issue resolved? I'm facing a very similar review comment. We have begun to assemble our argument, which is very similar to yours. I'm curious as to whether you were successful defending the commuting hours point.

Thanks

Tiffany - thanks for the reminder. Yes we were successful in achieving this credit. The only comment provided was as follows: "An appeal narrative including a transit schedule and revised shuttle schedule has been provided to address the issues outlined in the Design Final Review. The narrative verifies that the shuttle schedule aligns with the public transit schedule and meets commuter needs. The documentation demonstrates credit compliance."

We were able to show that the project shuttle schedule aligned with the public transportation schedule for all 7 days of the week, even though the weekend traffic/schedule was less than the weekday traffic/schedule.

Hope that helps.

Donald - Yes, that's very helpful. I believe our case can also justify the services available to the building. If I receive any additional direction, I'll post as well.

Good luck!

the "frequency" / 7 days a week requirement appears In LI #10207

"the situation described does not meet the intent of the credit. In order for the ferry to serve as a shuttle to connect building occupants to a larger public transportation network, the ferry must provide direct service and operate at a frequency and capacity to serve the occupants of the building, including evening and weekend service, and is reasonably coordinated with the subway and rail service schedule. Additionally, the cumulative walking distance must meet the credit requirements."

I guess the argument is that even if your building operates 5 days a week, a change in ownership could open the building up on the weekends. Seems like splitting hairs to me. Transit schedules probably change more than building owners for NC projects...