See all forum discussions about NC-v4 LTc7
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-v4 LTc7 Post a new question aboutNC-v4 LTc7
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-v4 LTc7»
FAQs about LTc7 :

My mixed-use building contains space types that aren’t listed in the Base Ratios table in the Reference Guide. How do I calculate the base ratio for my project?

I don’t have a copy of the Transportation Planning Handbook. How do I determine the base ratio for my project?

Can this credit be achieved if the project has no existing parking and is providing no new parking?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-v4 LTc7:Reduced parking footprint

Disincentivizing Parking Reductions

Even given the fact that LEED does not want to encourage automobile use, it seems excessively onerous to me to require a project to meet a 40% reduction if it earns even 1pt in Density or Transit. Credits that together offer a possible 10pts. Our suburban YMCA project earns no points in Transit and only 1pt with adjacent proximate services. Parking which is in effect necessary to get to our community health serving project could possibly get over the 20% reduction threshold with a little encouragement but has literally no shot at 40%. So there is no incentive to try. It seems to me with 10pts available, this bar could reasonably be set a little lower or even just distinguish between achieving 1pt in transit vs. 1pt in connectivity and might actually encourage projects to attempt this reduction rather than discouraging them. Can anyone explain the rationale for believing that having 4 proximate services means you should have to reduce available parking for not only FTEs but users of the recreational facility by 40%?

0
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user tlittle
Trista Brown
Project Director
WSP USA
LEEDuser Basic Member
381 thumbs up

Thu, 08/31/2017 - 18:27

Hi Michelle, I think part of the issue may be that LEED is agnostic about project type. So even though your project supports community health, the rules aren't really set up to include that in the equation. I also think that the density of services metric is a proxy for the availability of alternative modes of transit, so the idea is that more services indicates you should be able to reduce parking further than if there were fewer services. Whether the jump to 40% is reasonable is another question!

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.