Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan

It's from LEED Interpretation 532 (posted: 5/9/2003). Bascially boils down to the following requirements: The project must earn at least three of the four available SSc4 credits, document at a least a five-year commitment to the noted transit programs in your TMP, and provide documentation that the policies/procedures that ensure the same service for new employees (as well as confirming the number of current employees provided with the service).

Thanks Julie and Kristina for pointing this out. I don’t remember seeing that ruling. This is a little unsettling, since #532 is an old 2.0 or 2.1 ruling that lists many very specific requirements for a TMP that have not been made part of the 2009 language, nor is it one of the interpretations listed in the new USGBC site Credit Library for SSc4.1. It says it was updated by a Sept 2006 CIR, but I can’t find that CIR. True, looking at ruling #532 in the Interpretations database, the Applicability tab indicates for version 2009 "Project teams and reviewers may refer to the ruling for projects using this rating system, if reasonable and appropriate" (one check). Whereas for version 2.0 projects "the ruling was written for projects using this rating system and must be applied based on the project's registration date" (two check marks). Among the many other listed requirements for a comprehensive TMP, the ruling says we would need to earn 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4 if we want the comprehensive Transit Management Plan to earn one ID point. Thus a TMP only qualifies if it meets the bike rack and showers requirements of 4.2, which seems reasonable, but also *must* meet the credit 4.4 limits on parking capacity? That’s not stated in any addenda. I can agree in principle that having a lot of parking can work against a comprehensive TMP to reduce driving. But a number of cases such as an existing garage or parking lot, retail or programmatic issues might preclude 4.4 even when many other “comprehensive” measures are being taken. It seems relevant that when ruling #532 was made, SSc4.1, 4.2 ,4.3, and 4.4 were all worth only one point each. Under NC 2009, credit 4.1 is worth (6) points, 4.2 is worth (1) point, and 4.4 is worth (2) points. To earn (1) ID point on top of the (6) for 4.1, it doesn’t seem reasonable and appropriate to require both 4.2 and 4.4 as well, when that is just one of many requirements listed in an interpretation from 2006 that reviewers “may refer to” but isn’t indicated as “must apply” and doesn’t seem to appear anywhere else. It’s a difficult situation - I can imagine reviewers are under pressure to be thorough so a LEED rating maintains its credibility as rigorous. And even building code officials will interpret very precise language differently. But the Reference Guide language was not written with the rigor and thoroughness of code language, and there have been so many different locations of credit requirements, MPRs, addenda, CIRs, interpretations, Supplemental Guidance documents, and no single list of definitions. I’m very glad to see the new USGBC website is starting to address a lot of that confusion with one central glossary and the Credit Library, but that is still a work in progress. Until the Credit Library is complete and requirements are clearly communicated, I think it can be counter productive for reviews to ask projects to meet the “letter of the law” of old interpretations that only have one check mark in the applicability tab, that says reviewers “may refer to” and not “must apply.” It seems “reasonable and appropriate” to “refer to” a ruling to give project teams different options for complying with a credit when the Reference Guide and addenda are vague, or to clarify the credit intent in a new and unforeseen situation. I imagine there have been many comprehensive TMPs accepted that didn’t meet the long list of requirements in ruling #532 but still met the intent of the credit. Ok, rant over.

The preliminary review comments that I just got back also reference LEED Interpretation 532 and when I look it up in online the ruling begins "NOTE: This CIR has been updated by LEED-NCv2.1 SSc4.1 CIR ruling dated 9/22/2006" but I cannot find any credit dated 9/22/2006. Does anyone know the interpretation number of the updated CIR being referenced?

I think you are looking for LI#1597, dated 9/22/2006, and applicable to SSc4.1.

There may be a typo in the CIR ruling #532 that makes it hard to find the interpretation dated 9/22/2006. Searching by date, all I could find was interpretation #1597 written for CI SSc3.1 not NC SSc4.1, but since those are both the Alt Transit - Public Transit Access credits, that shouldn't matter. What's confusing, though, is #1597 addresses exemplary performance for an ID point by having access to quadruple the number of transit rides, and doesn’t say anything about transit management plans. It may be that #1597 is intended to supplement ruling #532 by providing an additional way to earn an ID point besides using a comprehensive TMP, but that’s not entirely clear.

Is Comprehesive Transportation Management Plan available as an Innovation credit for LEED v4 projects?

Erin, they changed up the Location/Site credits in v4, so it's definitely not an Exemplary Performance option like it is in v3. This is the closest I've seen fro the Innovation Catalogue for v4.1 (not sure why it's not also available under the v4 list...there are a few like this): https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-core-and-shell-schools-new-construction-retail-new-construction-data