USA Today had an article last week on LEED, how it is often gamed, how they don't track actual energy use and how studies show only a small - at best - reduction in energy use in LEED certified buildings. But the article unfortunately groups bike parking in with the 'questionable' ways to get credit.
The U.S. Green Building Council, a building industry non-profit, credited the Palazzo for having bike racks in the garage; room cards telling guests when towels are replaced; landscaping that does not use grass, which local law prohibits anyway; and preferred parking for fuel-efficient cars — spots that on a recent week were occupied by Ford Expeditions, Chevy Tahoes, Range Rovers, Mercedes E320s, Chrysler 300s, Audi A6s, vans, sports cars and a Hummer.
Or question the value
A USA TODAY review of 7,100 LEED-certified commercial buildings shows that designers target the easiest and cheapest green points by ... taking steps with an unknown effect, such as providing preferred parking for fuel-efficient cars, bike racks and showers, and posting educational displays about the building.
Or just say they have no value
"People have a tendency to buy points — they buy that bike rack even though there's no value in it," said Kansas City, Mo., architect Bob Berkebile
Perhaps it would be nice to try and quantify how much employee or customer bike parking increases bicycle use, though that would be hard to do. If you added parking, and bike commuting went up, there could be dozens of possible reasons for that. Perhaps you'd have to rely on surveys - though those are often flawed as well. I suspect you'd have more success with showing the value of showers, but then showers are much more intensive an investment.
There are some criticisms of LEED that are valid here. Buildings shouldn't get credit for meeting code, which means that most buildings in DC shouldn't get points for bike racks or showers - unless they go above that defined in the code, but only if that extra capacity will be used. Bike racks might get too many credits when compared to their benefits - not that that would be awful. And I don't think the LEED system has caught up with bike sharing enough to give points for a building that sponsers a bike station. But it's a stretch to say that there is no value in adding bike parking, or that LEED shouldn't credit buildings that do.
Going off topic of biking, I found the article put too much emphasis on energy use and ignored the wider goals of LEED. Improving the air inside a building is a legitimate enviromental and health concern, but it dismisses this.
More than 90% of the buildings got points for using indoor paints, adhesives and flooring that aim to protect occupants' health by emitting fewer contaminants. Widely used, the materials add little cost or effort and have no impact outside the building.
I don't think LEED is by any means perfect yet, but it's still evolving. It's been redesigned several times already and usually for the better. The idea of requiring a building to actually demonstrate lower energy and water use is a good one and something they should adopt. And, like I said, buildings shouldn't get credit for following existing building codes. But making some points easy to get, and giving developers the flexibility to choose the points they want to pursue are good features, not bugs. The program has flaws and I'd bet the USGBC would agree, but it has made buildings better and the framework is there to improve the system as flaws are found.
Also, a building is greener when it accomodates cycling. USA Today seems to miss that.
LEED requirements for bike parking are pretty weak. The parking can be as far away from the building as 200 feet, and requirements for type of rack must be weak as well if VDOT can get away with using wave racks instead of a more functional rack like the U rack. The new VDOT building in Fairfax is an example of poor rack placement. There are no curb ramps leading to the racks which are located a long walk from the building. When we asked that some U racks be placed closer to the building where there is plenty of room, we were told they were not acceptable. The LEED bike parking requirements need to be more along the lines of Arlington's.
See the FABB blog post about the VDOT building bike parking.
Posted by: Bruce Wright | November 02, 2012 at 09:39 AM
It's a tradeoff. The very features that made it palatable for builders, and thereby the industry norm when it might have been the exceptions, are also the flaws. Recall that market embrace of LEED was by no means a sure thing.
My own experience with LEED and bike parking are that you need to get a seat at the table during the design phase for parking and then press as hard as possible to get the most you can using whichever is better on any specific point, LEED or, in the case of DC, zoning. Rack design is an issue--those responsible for ordering have no clue what works and doesn't, and they generally suspect that your suggestion will be more expensive, even though that's not the case. Frankly, the rack industry needs to stop making and marketing useless designs.
Posted by: Crikey7 | November 02, 2012 at 09:48 AM
LEED does not define anywhere in their reference guide what a "bicycle space" is. The only requirements they have are that the rack is secure (which is subjective) and within 200 yards of the building entrance.
The type of rack, the quantity of bikes that can fit on the rack, and whether or not it's secure...all that is up to the design team.
If the owner just wants the point without meeting the actual intent of the credit, you're going to get a wheel bender type rack in the bottom of the parking garage.
Posted by: UrbanEngineer | November 02, 2012 at 10:14 AM
In DC, it has to be on the first parking level. That is the single best provision in the DC zoning code when it comes to bike parking. It means that most of the time, the bike parking will be in view of a parking attendant. Don't forget to give that person a little something at Christmas time, and greet them every day. It may save your bike from being stolen.
Posted by: Crikey7 | November 02, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Interesting...the bike rack in the building I work is on the 3rd parking level.
Posted by: UrbanEngineer | November 02, 2012 at 10:46 AM
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations Title 18, Chapter 21: 2119 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES:
2119.3 Bicycle facilities shall have convenient access from the building or structure and street or other bicycle right-of-way, be clean, secure and well lit and shall be located within a building or structure, either on the ground floor, basement, or first cellar level.
Posted by: Crikey7 | November 02, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Do you know if title 11 was ever amended as proposed a few years back with the more in depth regulations than what you've quoted here?
The proposed amendment: http://app.dcoz.dc.gov/content/schedule/ViewFile.aspx?fileId=206&fileName=PHN08
Posted by: UrbanEngineer | November 02, 2012 at 11:10 AM
I don't. The DC website has a DDOT Bicycle Program listed at (202) 671-2331.
Posted by: Crikey7 | November 02, 2012 at 11:23 AM
It should be more focued on the buildings and the USE of the building; leaving the lights on all night doesn't help. Bike-parkng and fuel efficient parking spots - less helpful.
Perhaps an integration of bike-share in the future, or one of Alpert's magic transit screens....
Posted by: charlie | November 02, 2012 at 11:32 AM