leed pilot credits - we need your help!

Where can I find more information on the definition of all weather pathways? Thanks.

Peter, are there any particular situations you're wondering about?I think that in terms of documenting this as a pilot credit, you can make your own assumptions, to some extent.

Project is in San Diego and is very near two large public campuses. They have concrete and brick pathways allowing pedestrian access crisscrossing the large campus blocks. For this project, I'd need those intersections to count to get the 60. It seems appropriate to me to count them, as they do contribute greatly to connectivity and community access. Here's a link to the graphic: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/w4xRA8792fvF7aiBc_4jDks04y_YNIQzvnDin0lAIxo?feat=directlink Thanks!

Peter, It will be interesting to see how USGBC treats campus sidewalks/pathways. In many cases they clearly function as pedestrian streets, but they sometimes also serve as redundant shortcuts that don't really indicate increased connectivity. Also, when are or are they not 'addressable' (per LEED ND -- see Batya Metalitz's 09.28.10 post below)? More generally, looking at your graphic and google maps of the area, it looks like you have marked some intersections that appear to be only sidewalks to access a building whose entrance is set back from the street (e.g. the two red-roofed buildings at the bend in Park Blvd; the diagonal driveway at the condo at 7th & Ash), rather than ROW intersections. Also, it looks like you've marked at least one that is two freeway ramps merging.

So I guess I'm not clear. We get the ID point for attempting the credit and providing feedback? or getting to 60 intersections? I agree some of the ones I've marked probably don't meet the intent of the credit. If the campus pathways count, we could probably pick up a few more there, or shift the radius around the rectangular site to maximize intersection count. I'm also limited by what I can see on Google Earth, there may be alleyways that are not counted. Thanks for the immediate and direct feedback!

I am working on a campus condition as well and have found it very difficult to document side walk connections based on google maps do to the tree canopy. In some ways, I have found this credit to be a little counter to the Open Space credit, because a great open space is something will not have street intersections cutting through it.

Hi Patrick Thanks for the comments. You're not bound to using google maps, so if none of the view types work (satellite or map view maybe?), you can use some other type of map or drawing of the area. Please let us know how this goes. The "counter to open space" comment is one we've received several times now, see the conversation below. It seems the best approach is to essentially dilute the impact of a nearby open space by expanding the radius and increasing the number of required intersections somewhat. This doesn't solve the issue of the conflicting intents, but it does help to manage the problem. Other alternative recommendations?

The new pilot guidance helped our project significantly. Under the new language, the radius can be drawn from the site boundary, rather than just one circle from the middle. Here's our revised diagram, submitted for USGBC review last week. http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Zh6CzZJBcGGn7mjzzX_jR0s04y_YNIQzvnDin0lAIxo?feat=directlink Comments welcome! Thanks.

The Pilot credit 29 will help my project get the extra points we need for certification. The LEED certification process should use more emphasis on the location of the project as it pertains to the commercial areas near the project.

I have several projects that are pursuing PC 9 and will easily qualify. In reviewing their submittals however, I've noticed one idiosyncrasy that I'm hoping folks here can either identify as a flaw in the current credit wording, or a misunderstanding on my part: "Intersections with culs-de-sac are not counted." would seem to indicate that any intersection where one option is a cul-de-sac does not count. Wouldn't a four (or more) way intersection that includes a cul-de-sac as one option be equally advantageous to a three way intersection with no cul-de-sac? If I"m correct, I suggest the above quote be changed to "Three way intersections with culs-de-sac are not counted." Thanks

Jon, I would agree with your interpretation, but I don't have any specific experience to suggest how USGBC would respond. Perhaps a suggested language change would be something like "streets that lead only to a cul-de-sac or other dead-end shall not be considered in determining intersections to be counted.

I think to combat the "counter to open space" issue, there could be a percentage reduction in the requirement. Something like if the area surrounding the project is 40% water, the number of intersections could be reduced 30-40%.

Two responses to the Jons: Jon Jensen - that's a great suggestion. It currently is assumed that this is the case, but we can be more clear. We updated the language to clarify that it's 'intersections leading only to a dead end or cul-de-sac'. Jon Texter - the credit language allows project teams to ignore parks and water bodies, so project team's aren't penalized by being near them. We look at intersection density, rather than total number of intersections. So yes, the total number of intersections needed will be reduced by the same percentage as the percentage of park area within 1/4 mile of the project boundary. This will be made abundantly clear by the use of examples in the Reference Guide.

I think that the "intersection" requirement should be amended to include BOTH streets for cars, buses and bicycles and sidewalks.

I feel there should be a correlation between the intersection count and available community resources. Lots of intersections doesn't necessarily reflect on its connection to the community. Suburban and rural areas won't easily qualify for this credit, yet these areas might actually be connected better to community resources then some urban areas.