Per SSc4.3 CIR Ruling 2/2/2004, LEED has accepted a two-year contract with ZipCar as an alternative compliance path for residential projects to SSc4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Vehicles. We would like LEED to consider granting residential projects credit for this strategy under SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity.Our residential project is located in downtown Manhattan. We have made provisions to install 2 recharging stations, satisfying SSc4.3. We have achieved "exemplary parking reductions" (per CIR 4/28/2004), to satisfy the first portion of SSc4.4. For the second portion, we would like to provide our tenants with convenient car sharing by lodging and contracting Zipcars in lieu of facilitating carpooling with a designated pick up and drop off area.Providing Zipcars in the downstairs garage will discourage occupants from purchasing their own vehicles -- why own a car in Manhattan when you have one downstairs for use on as-needed basis? This will reduce car use in Manhattan, since occupants that do not own a car are less likely to use one for non-essential trips. In light of Manhattan\'s extensive public transportation system and given the relatively low number of people who live in Manhattan and drive to work (people for whom carpooling is most appealing), we believe discouraging car ownership will reduce more SOV miles than facilitating carpooling.If LEED does not agree that Zipcars are an acceptable compliance path for reducing single occupancy vehicle use in Manhattan, could we submit the strategy as a supplement to recharging stations for exemplary performance within the context of SSc4.3?
Based on this description, it is possible that the project could achieve compliance with SSc4.4 AND an innovation credit for exemplary performance relative to SSc4.3. The Zipcar approach has environmental benefits in that it reduces car ownership, may reduce the overall number of trips driven, reduces the need for parking spaces in a residential context, and is much more appropriate to a high-rise residential development than carpooling incentives. Accordingly, USGBC will grant equivalence for the carpooling compliance path of SSc4.4 to be met in a multi-unit residential setting IF the Zipcar contract is for at least 2 years, AND preferred parking is provided for the Zipcars, AND it is demonstrated that these Zipcars are capable of serving 5% of the building\'s occupants, AND if the calculations and assumptions behind Zipcar\'s estimates of customers served per car are found reasonable by the certification reviewers with a margin of error that is less than 5%. Please refer to the CIR Ruling for SSc4.3 dated 2/2/2004 for recommended certification submittal documentation. Also, documentation should include verification that the parking capacity requirement of this credit is met.Regarding the pursuit of an innovation credit for exemplary performance relative to SSc4.3, it is possible that the approach described in the inquiry could be awarded an innovation point if high efficiency gas/electric HYBRID Zipcars (or equivalent) are utilized AND the following requirements (as allowed by IDc1.2 CIR Ruling dated 12/1/2003) are met: "Provide alternative fuel vehicles for 3% of building occupants and provide preferred parking for these vehicles, AND install alternative-fuel refueling stations for 3% of the total vehicle capacity of the site." Essentially, providing the Zipcars in addition to the EV recharging stations would equate to doubling the performance threshold of SSc4.3, so long as the required percentages are achieved. Again, the calculations and assumptions behind Zipcar\'s estimates of customers served per car will need to be found reasonable by the certification reviewers with a margin of error that is less than 5%. Also, documentation should include verification that the Zipcars utilized by the project qualify as alternative fuel vehicles, or hybrids.