Is PC9 seen as an additional

At the moment, this credit is seen as being in addition to SSc2, rather than an alternative compliance path. A project team may earn SSc2 and still earn an ID point for this pilot credit. What we're really looking to test is whether the intersection count (which is a relatively simple submittal) can serve as a good stand-in for more complex credit requirements, while meeting a similar connectivity intent. We have started to see that geographic barriers like railroad tracks, bodies of water, and designated open spaces can be a barrier to achievement, and your suggestion of offering various radius options sounds like a good solution, though some of these features really do hamper the connectivity of a site to its surroundings (especially in the case of railroad tracks). What do others think? On a related note for all participating projects, please do submit your your findings even if you do not meet the threshold to earn this credit. Because it is a pilot credit, your feedback on improving the credit is even more valuable than meeting the threshold. Perhaps include some examples of how your project would fare if the radius were expanded to 1/2 mile (with a corresponding increase in number of intersections) or even 1 mile to offset the inaccessible areas.

Our project site is in a dense urban location in San Diego but there are some parks and cul-de-sacs that made it a little tricky. However, we did end up meeting the minimum requirements. While I can see extending the radius to a 1/2 mile, I think a mile seems pretty extensive.

Being able to shift the center of the 1/4-mile circle some limited distance, while maintaining the number of required intersections at 60, seems like it would be a good method of getting a "clean" representative sample of a community's connectivity when there are pedestrian obstacles (highways, railroad tracks, open spaces/parks) present. Increasing the radius much beyond 1/4 mile starts to get outside the limit of walkability, at least in a suburban context (unfortunately!). My project is in a dense, highly-connected suburb of Boston (Newton, MA). We meet the requirements to achieve 3 points for LL5.3 - Outstanding Community Resources / Transit, so the neighborhood should certainly be considered highly connected. With the 1/4-mile circle centered on the site, however, we just barely meet the 60-interesection requirement for PC9. Shifting the circle 500' north to avoid railroad tracks and a large park yields an intersection count of 67. The neighborhood has quite a few cul-de-sacs, which limits our total - and, in this case, is a good proxy for connectivity.