Greetings forum.
My next question is simple enough: what is the distinction between an "existing service" and a "planned service" for the purposes of identifying an eligible stop to qualify the development for SSLc3?
What specifically does the "service" entail? Are we talking simply about the routes and service levels as defined by daily trips? Does it not include the actual alignment and the stops?
I ask this because my project is temporarily diverting a bus route and its stop areas during construction. My project, of course, is radically altering the street network. The alignment will be restored somewhat similarly to its former shape but the stops are now in quite different locations than they were formerly, and in fact, the transit agency requested an extra stop on the main thoroughfare adjacent to the development, which we will construct. Within a year, the new streets will be in place for the transit service to run again through the site.
Obviously, I would think that you would base the 1/4 mile walk distance on the new location of the stops, technically "planned" right now, not the former locations, correct? Has the "existing service" been disqualified because we altered the alignment and stops of the service? Does the extra stop we added qualify as an eligible "existing service" stop?
Eliot Allen
LEED AP-ND, PrincipalCriterion Planners
LEEDuser Expert
303 thumbs up
September 23, 2012 - 3:08 pm
Eric, transit ‘service’ is the number of daily rides at a stop that’s within the required walk distance from origin points. SLLc3 Option 1 allows construction-related service interruptions for up to two years “if the transit agency has committed to restoring the compliant routes with service at or above the prior level.” So your first step should be confirming that existing stops meet the credit’s minimum ride requirements. Assuming they do, then you should be ok with the new locations of the old stops because the “restoring compliant” languages refers to “routes,” not “stops,” in effect acknowledging the necessity of realigned routes and repositioned stops when a street network is redesigned. And the “at or above” phrase should allow you to count rides at the transit agency-requested additional new stop as if it were an existing stop.
Eliot
Eric Orozco
Urban Designer, LEED AP NDNeighboring Concepts, PLLC
38 thumbs up
September 23, 2012 - 10:57 pm
Thanks Eliot!
I guess my concern with this interpretation is that it seems to leave a door wide open to allow project teams to harm the transit service by slowing it down. This can happen a number of ways: (1) either by relocating or adding stops in such a way to harm the service performance - especially by adding more stops than necessary, (2) adding dwelling times at the new intersections introduced, which you mostly likely will be if you are striving to meet NPDc6, or (3) by altering the alignment to take extra diversions to better serve units. Isn't this the reason why the intent of the credit is to reward teams for locating at "locations SHOWN to have multimodal transportation choices" versus a planned service that doesn't? What is to prevent a project team from diverting (or extending) an existing nearby route to get a stop near its dwelling units?
I guess I'm now missing the reason for disqualifying "planned service". It seems to me that you should reward a project team that designs its development to be transit ready for a future service if that indeed is a possibility.
Do you know the reasons this credit was structured this way? I'm very curious what the reasoning was behind it. Does the Location and Planning TAG have any discussions available on this I can refer to?
Eliot Allen
LEED AP-ND, PrincipalCriterion Planners
LEEDuser Expert
303 thumbs up
September 24, 2012 - 12:08 pm
Eric,
The ND Core Committee crafted the rating system’s treatment of existing versus planned transit. Their meeting minutes don’t go into details, but in a nutshell they wanted transit service to be in place from the very outset of project occupancy so that transit mode choice habits can form immediately, and public investment in transit is maximized. The exception under SLLp1 Option 3 for planned service is heavily qualified by the necessity of such investment being fully committed.
A word of caution about my earlier response: being able to count rides at a transit agency-requested post-construction new stop under SLLc3 is only my interpretation of the credit language, and I can imagine others might conclude that the phrase “or above” simply acknowledges the transit agency’s prerogative to increase service, but that increment of new service still doesn’t get counted because of the credit’s base exclusion of new service. If this issue is notable for your project, you should submit a CIR on it.
As you point out, after location the important ways to make a project transit-friendly fall under NPD, especially Credits 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. By using these and related credits to integrate urban design and transit planning, a project should be able to get a strong endorsement from the local transit agency and generate a superior transit mode share.
Eliot
Eric Orozco
Urban Designer, LEED AP NDNeighboring Concepts, PLLC
38 thumbs up
September 25, 2012 - 10:59 am
Thanks Eliot. That does shed a bit more light. I realize that one can too easily claim that transit service is "planned", so it makes sense to award only existing service.
Walkability and development character is indeed important to transit service, but there's a bit more that goes into transit-readiness in my mind. The most important is location of the alignments and how the development relates to them. For the latter, SLL Prerequisite 1 and NPD Credit 3 do reward for good relation to the stops of planned service.
I'm worried however about the implications of allowing project teams to change routes to suit LEED-ND credits, but not produce great outcomes for the transit network. Adding stops and diversions is bad news. If your transit network, for example, is a pulse network, and you are adding travel time through the LEED-ND development, transit service will have to adjust accordingly. It is not as elastic as we'd assume. So, now a location elsewhere that was shown to be multi-modally served will now potentially be adversely affected. Another example: if you have a potential for a transit connection between alignments and can provide two stops, will the development team space those stops closer together or will they be tempted to space them further apart to reach more of their dwelling units and building entrances? These are just some of the things to think about in terms of the outcomes of transit service.