First question: In SSc3.3 for CI reserved parking spaces for car/vanpools are to be at least 5 % of FTE. In NC SSc4.4 parking spaces should be reserved for 5 % of number of parking spaces. Is either one of them incorrect or is it supposed to be different? One based on FTE and the other on number of parking spaces?
Second question: In Sweden a carpool is like a self-service rental car. You are a member of a carpooling company and you book a car and pay a reasonable fee to use it. Would this qualify? Having a carpooling company in our garage? I think it would be used by both occupants and others! I have understood that the meaning of a car/vanpool in the US and the Reference Guide refer to ridesharing in own vehicles, is that right? That would definitely not be as easy to use for our building occupants.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Kate Kelly
Sustainability CoordinatorYR&G
17 thumbs up
October 28, 2011 - 5:53 pm
Maria,
1st Q: It is seems confusing at first, but don't think it is a mistake…
For NC # of parking spaces and size of parking facility is in the building’s control and designed with FTE +visitors/transients in mind. For CI the project might not have control over all parking spaces, or even how many they are designated.
I would guess this change helps requirements across CI projects be more accurate by relating spaces directly to ‘people count’ (so that the Parking availability decisions are based on # of FTE, not how many parking spots the Building may decide to give the CI space).
In my head at least this somewhat justifies the change in Option-1 Case 1 & 2: 5% tenant occupants vs 5% building occupants….
2nd: If you take LEED’s literal definition of carpool in the manual as “an arrangement by which 2 or more people share a vehicle for transportation” your carpooling company may fit the bill? There was a discussion on opting for a US car-share system (ZipCar) in lieu of standard carpools here (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/SSc4.4#comment-13748) for NC that may be useful. Seems like it may be worth the try/exploring more… others have ideas?
Susan M. Kaplan
Director of Specifications and SustainabilityHLW International
70 thumbs up
January 3, 2012 - 4:08 pm
Regarding question 1:
Does anyone know an exception to the 5% of the FTE for preferred carpooling parking (LEED CI) when the project is in an urban environment and the preferred spaces number comes to more than the available parking spaces allocated to the LEED CI project? The LEED CS project is meeting SSc4.4 by not exceeding minimum zoning requirements.
Should we submit a CIR?
Alicia Freire
Associatehurleypalmerflatt
38 thumbs up
February 6, 2012 - 6:31 am
Kate,
In line with the previous comments from Susan, I am assessing a project where the tenant is occupying the total of the building. Although there is enough area to add new car park, the client has decided not to do it to encourage the use of more sustainable transport such as public transport of bikes (cyclist provisions are being incorporated). Additionally, the non-addition of car park spaces is in line with Case 2 – Option 1 of the credit requirements. If the number of preferred parking is based on the FTE instead of the number of car parks, then effectively we would need to add car park spaces since a 5% of the FTE is higher than the total of car park spaces provided.
Allocating additional car park spaces, even when it is for carpools, will actually increase the number of car based travel in an area with excellent public transport. Would it be worth it for me to send a CIR with this regard?
Many thanks in advance for your help.
Regards
Alicia
Larry Jones
Associate DirectorAtelier Ten
258 thumbs up
September 6, 2012 - 12:49 pm
In response to Susan, LEED CI allows for each carpool space to accommodate 2 FTE. Knowing this, are you still under the required percentage? Also, you can use Option 2 which allows you to take 5% of the allocated parking capacity. It seems that this would be the easier option for you.
Maria Porter
Sustainability specialistSkanska Sweden
271 thumbs up
May 30, 2013 - 2:46 am
Carpooling as i Zip-cars was denied credit and denied through a CIR! Even if it has been approved previously in SSc4.4 in NC. But – we found something else in the Reference guide: “Projects have met the credit requirements if they locate in a LEED-certified building that has also achieved this credit.” Our project is sitting in a building undergoing CS certification and that will be done by the time this projects submits for final review. And in CS it is not a requirement to have car/vanpool. But we will still keep our Zip-cars as we find it “green” even if LEED doesn’t.
John Beeson
Green Mystic in Residence107 thumbs up
November 12, 2013 - 9:18 pm
HI Maria,
Was this a project specific CIR that it was denied? Do you have the response language somewhere?
Maria Porter
Sustainability specialistSkanska Sweden
271 thumbs up
November 14, 2013 - 4:26 am
John, it was project specific although we did ask to use the strategy in a wider sense. (And our cars are "green cars" as well).
The ruling: “The applicant is requesting a ruling on whether providing car-share vehicles on site may qualify for the SSc3.3 requirement of providing preferred parking for carpools. The project intends to provide shared vehicles on site, exclusive to project occupants, for at least two years. This strategy may be applied to a Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan or LEED-NCv2009 SSc4.3, Option 4 for an exemplary performance point. However, it is not an acceptable alternative to providing preferred parking under SSc3.3. The intent of SSc3.3 is to reduce single-occupant vehicle use for commuters to and from the project, and it is unclear that providing vehicles on site will address commuting needs or reduce demand for commuter parking.”
I do not agree.
John Beeson
Green Mystic in Residence107 thumbs up
November 14, 2013 - 8:56 am
Thanks, Maria for sharing it!
Could you define more clearly how providing vehicles on site will address commuting needs or reduce demand for commuter parking? It does seem like the car-share vehicles would only affect trips from the office to other locations: not commuter vehicle use. That seems to be the main area of denial.
Maria Porter
Sustainability specialistSkanska Sweden
271 thumbs up
November 18, 2013 - 6:33 am
John,
In my opinion the credit talks about reducing the use of cars, not only commuting to and from work. In Swedish carpool is the same as zip-cars, so I thought it would be a good way of making it work here, since your definition of car pooling would probably result in empty parking spaces. (Although there sure is space for improvement for us here). The zip-cars could be used privately as well. Also, a big reason for people to bring their car to work (tenant being a large construction company) is so that they can go to the project sites scattered throughout the city and surroundings. So zip-cars would absolutely reduce the amount of car rides.
Also in the same credit in NC the zip-car option has been awarded previously, it was a residential building, but credit intents are the same, and for our project I feel that the intent would have been met.