Crosson 1

SHADES OF GREEN: MODIFYING SUSTAINABILITY RATING SYSTEMS FOR TRANSIT 1 CENTER FUNCTIONALITY 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Courtney Crosson, AIA, LEED AP ND, LEED AP BD+C* 30 Assistant Professor, School of Architecture 31 College of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape Architecture 32 University of Arizona 33 1040 N Olive Rd, Room 314 34 Tucson, AZ 85719 35 Fax: 520-621-8700 36 Tel: 352-219-4357 37 ccrosson@email.arizona.edu 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 *Corresponding Author 45 46 Word Count: 4,829 text + 2 tables x 250 words (each) + 8 figures x 250 words (each) = 7,329 words 47 48 49 Submission Date: August 1st 2016 50 Revised Submission Date: November 15, 2016 51

Crosson 2

ABSTRACT 1 Urban transit hubs that expand walkability, increase transportation and neighborhood connectivity, and 2 broaden infrastructure resilience are intrinsically sustainable. However, under the Leadership in Energy 3 and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) rating system, the infrastructure 4 requirements of this built typology can also preclude it from achieving sustainability certification. LEED 5 ND is the most established certification system for projects at the district scale that seek economic 6 development without the depletion of natural, cultural, and social surroundings. In 2015, Los Angeles 7 Union Station Master Plan (LAUSMP) became the first transit hub to pursue LEED ND certification. 8 Using evidence from LAUSMP, this paper outlines the inherent advantages, existing barriers, and needed 9 expansions to achieve compatibility between transit center design and LEED ND. This paper suggests 10 updated metrics for connectivity and walkability to recognize linkages that occur above and below the 11 ground plane, inclusion of incentives for carbon emissions reduction and air quality monitoring, and 12 expanded exemptions for transit infrastructure from density and tree lined street calculations. Ultimately, 13 the paper proposes a revised version of the LEED ND rating system to create a standardized tool to 14 measure sustainability across transit hubs. 15

Crosson 3

INTRODUCTION 1 Urban transit centers expand walkability, increase transportation and neighborhood connectivity, 2

and broaden infrastructure resilience, thus significantly contribute to the sustainability of the urban areas 3 in which they operate. Currently, numerous urban transit centers in the United States are undergoing 4 planning efforts to increase efficiency and flexibility as part of a new focus on multimodal transit options 5 and urban revitalization. New York City’s Grand Central Station [1], Denver’s Union Station [2], 6 Chicago’s Union Station [3], and Washington DC’s Union Station [4] have all announced, within the last 7 five years, ambitious plans to ‘green’ their historic rail centers. Rail centers currently under construction, 8 such as the San Francisco TransBay Terminal [5], aim to meet high standards of energy, water, and waste 9 efficiency and make positive ecological contributions to their urban surroundings. Within this surge of 10 planning efforts, there is a need for a standardized tool to measure, monitor and document sustainability 11 across the typology. 12

Several green rating systems offer third party certification to projects at the district scale. Of 13 these existing systems, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development 14 (LEED ND) is the most established and is the best fit for urban transit centers, given the broad inclusion 15 of credits spanning infrastructure efficiency, revenue generation, transportation demand management, and 16 community inclusion [6]. However, under the LEED ND rating system, the infrastructure requirements 17 of transit hubs can also preclude them from achieving sustainability certification. 18

In 2015, Los Angeles Union Station Master Plan (LAUSMP) became the first transit hub to 19 pursue LEED ND certification. Using evidence from LAUSMP, this paper outlines the inherent 20 advantages, existing barriers, and needed expansions to achieve compatibility between transit center 21 design and LEED ND. This paper suggests updated metrics for connectivity and walkability to recognize 22 linkages that occur above and below the ground plane, inclusion of incentives for carbon emissions 23 reduction and air quality monitoring, and expanded exemptions for transit infrastructure (e.g. tunnels and 24 interstate ramps) from density and tree lined street calculations. Ultimately, the paper proposes a revised 25 version of the LEED ND rating system to create a standardized tool to measure sustainability across 26 transit hubs and recognize design advances contributing to a more sustainable city. 27 28 SUSTAINABILITY BENCHMARKING FOR DISTRICTS 29

For projects larger than a building, the most prominent green rating systems include EcoDistricts, 30 2030 Districts, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED 31 ND), Envision, Living Community Challenge (LCC), and Sustainable Sites. There is a wide variation in 32 these systems’ approaches from an open-ended community process (e.g. EcoDistricts), to defined 33 checklists (e.g. LEED ND), to a customizable checklist (e.g. Envision), and to an all or nothing award 34 (e.g. LCC). The correct rating system depends on the scope of project, objectives of the owner, status of 35 the land entitlement, and location. In most cases, LEED ND is the best fit for transit centers within urban 36 neighborhoods because its checklist contains a broad range of credits that address sustainable 37 infrastructure within environmental, social, and cultural consequences. LEED ND places emphasis on the 38 site selection, design, and construction elements that bring buildings and infrastructure together into a 39 neighborhood and relate the neighborhood to its landscape as well as its local and regional context. 40

A project that does not pursue certification is not inherently less sustainable. However, a master 41 plan project that does not pursue certification may have a harder time reaching a coordinated sustainable 42 outcome given a lengthy timeline and myriad actors. The paper is argued on the premise that certification 43 empowers sustainable design because property owners and developers are all held to guiding standards 44 that define the best practices of sustainable urban design. The paper endeavors to improve the best 45 practices offered to transit centers through LEED ND certification. 46 47 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) 48

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) 49 rating system was developed through a collaboration by the United States Green Building Council 50 (USGBC), the Congress for the New Urbanism, and the National Resource Defense Council [7] in 51

Crosson 4

response to a need for a sustainability certification tool for projects larger than a building. The system 1 was first launched in 2009 and is administered by the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI). 2 Currently, LEED ND offers certification under the version 4 rating system, which is the version used for 3 this paper’s analysis. 4

5 Scorecard System 6

In LEED ND there are 110 possible points distributed across five main categories: Smart 7 Location and Linkages (SLL, 5 prerequisites, 27 points), Neighborhood Pattern and Design (NPD, 3 8 prerequisites, 44 points), and Green Infrastructure and Buildings (GIB, 4 prerequisites, 29 points), 9 Regional Priority Credit (RPC, 4 points), and Innovation and Design Process (IDP, 6 points). Table 2 10 provides the full scorecard for reference. The scoring system is heavily based on principles of new 11 urbanism [8]. LEED ND is the most prominent and widely used and recognized system with over 100 12 projects certified and over 160 registered [9]. 13 14 FIGURE 1 LEED ND Timeline for Los Angeles Union Station Master Plan Certification 15

16 The LEED ND certification pathway is a long process as master plans are complex design and 17 construction projects involving multiple buildings and sometimes multiple owners and entitlements. 18 Above in Figure 1, the process of Los Angeles Union Station Master Plan is diagrammed through the 3 19 stages which lead to final certification. 20 21 PROCESS AND METHODS 22

Prominent district scale sustainability programs were gathered and evaluated to identify the 23 system with the greatest compatibility with transit centers. LEED ND was identified as the best fit, see 24 Table 1. Next, the LEED ND version 4 manual was examined for affinity with the unique characteristics 25 of the transit hub typology. Prerequisites were investigated for any mandates that would preclude transit 26 centers from participating in the certification process. Then, all 110 points of the LEED ND system were 27 analyzed for synergies and conflicts. Finally, LAUSMP was engaged as a case study and the findings 28 from the review were solidified through diagramming real examples. A critique of the design was 29

Crosson 5

included to underscore where the LEED ND could go beyond inclusivity of transit centers and actively 1 propel better design in this typology. 2 3 Los Angeles Union Station Master Plan (LAUSMP) Case Study Background 4

The LAUSMP process was initiated when Los Angeles Metro purchased the historic station and 5 40 acre property in 2011. Los Angeles Union Station is the primary regional transit center of Southern 6 California, connecting over 600,000 travelers and commuters with light rail, commuter rail, long distance 7 trains, buses, shuttles, and bike share [10]. The LAUSMP site exists within a quickly transforming urban 8 fabric and links the station to the adjacent downtown commercial center, historic neighborhoods of El 9 Pueblo and Chinatown, and re-emerging assets of the Los Angeles River and Arts District. LAUSMP 10 includes a newly integrated bus terminal, updated and expanded rail services, three metro lines, a 11 proposed new high speed rail station terminal, and over 3 million square feet of transit oriented 12 development (TOD). 13

LAUSMP is a good match for certification under the LEED ND rating system given the points 14 awarded for TOD, mixed use, and historic reuse. Figure 1 outlines the necessary steps and timeline for 15 LAUSMP to achieve LEED ND certification. 16 17 TABLE 1 Pro and Con of Green Rating Certification Systems at the Master Plan Scale (2.1) 18

19 20 RESULTS 21

Results were broken into three categories: inherent advantages, existing barriers, and areas that 22 needed modifications. This analysis concluded that a modified LEED ND can serve as an effective, 23 standardized tool for measuring sustainability of transit hubs. Table 2 displays these results. 24 25 Inherent Advantages 26

The inherently sustainable attributes of transit centers are recognized in several areas of LEED 27 ND, creating a strong compatibility between the third party rating and the typology. In the Site Location 28 and Linkages category, the credits Smart Location, Preferred Location, and Locations with Reduced 29 Automobile Dependence highlight transit center compatibility with LEED ND criteria (totaling 17 points 30 out of 110). In the Neighborhood Pattern and Design category the credits Transit Facilities, 31 Transportation Demand Management, and Access to Civic and Public Space fit well with transit centers 32 (totaling 4 points out of 110). Under the third category, Green Infrastructure and Building, there are no 33 credits which are implicit to transit center functioning, but there are several that are beneficial to the needs 34 of such a facility. Energy Efficient Infrastructure, District Heating and Cooling, and Storm Water 35 Management are credits that are advantageous for transit facilities to pursue. 36 37 LAUSMP Case Study: Inherent Advantages 38

In the case of LAUSMP, there are several additional synergies in the LEED ND point structure 39 including Historic Resource Preservation and Adaptive Reuse, Heat Island Reduction, and Certified 40 Green Buildings. The LAUSMP site fits well within the expectations of the LEED ND category titled 41 Smart Location and Linkages. Under the Smart Location prerequisite, the project easily accomplishes the 42 infill site classification [9]. 43

Crosson 6

TABLE 2 LEED ND Scorecard Evaluated Against Inherent Advantages, Current Barriers, and 1 Suggested Modifications for LEED ND and Transit Center Compatibility 2

3

Crosson 7

Existing Barriers 1 The analysis of LEED ND proved there were two prerequisites and several credits in the LEED 2

ND system that need modification to create compatibility between LEED ND and transit centers. These 3 prerequisites, credits, and modifications are explained below. 4 5 Connected and Open Community Prerequisite 6

LEED ND uses the metric of intersections per square mile to evaluate projects’ connectivity. 7 According to the manual, “connectivity is measured in intersection density because this metric is most 8 closely correlated with increasing multimodal travel, particularly walking and bicycling. Projects 9 designed with short blocks and frequent intersections make walking and bicycling more attractive and 10 reduce carbon emissions from cars and vehicles [9].” The Connected and Open Community prerequisite 11 in the Neighborhood Pattern and Design category requires: 12

• 140 intersections per square mile AND 13 • Design the project with at least one through street every 800 feet (non-motorized right of ways may 14

only count for 20% of intersections) [9]. 15 Access to a transit center is proven to greatly increase an area’s connectivity [11]. In transit 16

centers, connectivity is often accomplished through dedicated transit rights-of-ways with ‘intersections’ 17 above, below, and at the ground plane and inside and outside buildings. Pedestrian bridges, under street 18 connections, metro station entrances inside buildings, and protected lanes for foot traffic can all allow for 19 smooth connectivity despite a complicated ground plane. Further, transit centers and transfer facilities are 20 typically "superblocks" in their site configuration, and have their own network internal to the superblock 21 that is outside of LEED ND’s current metric of number of ground plane intersections. The LEED ND 22 prerequisite for dense ground plane intersections and a through street every 800 feet is very challenging in 23 this logistical choreography of multiple modes of high volume transit in a dense urban core. 24

As Connected and Open Community is a prerequisite, this currently limited definition of 25 connectivity can exclude transit hubs from being able to pursue LEED ND certification. This exclusion 26 can be addressed by expanding the metrics by which connectivity is quantified. By broadening eligible 27 intersections to include connections that happens above and below the ground plane and inside as well as 28 outside buildings, a more efficacious measure of connectivity can be mandated. Good urban design 29 maximizes connectivity while ensuring safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and efficient movement for 30 motorized vehicles. By widening the definition of connectivity to activity above and below the ground 31 plane, better design for dense urban spaces will be promoted. 32 33 LAUSMP Case Study: Connectivity In the case study of LAUSMP, the site straddles the downtown 34 urban fabric (Downtown LA), historic industrial fabric (Piper Tech, Bail Bonds, County Jail), and cultural 35 districts (Chinatown, El Pueblo, Arts Districts). While offering many exciting possibilities for how to 36 connect these fabrics to a more integrate whole, solid boundaries such as the 101 Interstate and rail yard 37 also offer challenges to computing satisfactory urban density of gross square feet (GSF) and density of 38 intersections on the ground plane. The bicycle flyovers and pedestrian connections offered in the 39 LAUSMP positively address the current pedestrian and bicycle safety issues and work to link El Pueblo, 40 China Town, and the Arts District. If LEED ND expands eligible intersections, the connectively that 41 LAUSMP offers would be better recorded. To empower the efficacious urban design in LAUSMP, 42 neighborhood connectivity needs to be viewed not only as a single plane of internal walkability, but as a 43 multilayered system. 44

Further, in new versions, LEED ND could go a step further and create criteria that would promote 45 better connectivity in dense urban areas. For example, criteria for way-finding and multimodal transition 46 times would offer qualitative and quantitative assurances that efficient and safe connections are made. In 47 the case of LAUSMP, way-finding and connection times were important design criteria. 48 49

Crosson 8

FIGURE 2 LAUSMP and Connectivity Conflicts 1

2 Currently, Los Angeles Union Station narrowly qualifies (has 144 intersections per square mile, needed 3 140 intersections per square mile) for the LEED ND prerequisite for Connected and Open Community for 4 projects without internal streets. In Figure 2, qualifying intersection per square mile (SQMI) are 5 marketed with a green dot. 6 7 Walkable Streets Prerequisite 8

The Neighborhood Pattern and Design category includes a prerequisite titled Walkable Streets, 9 focused on maintaining rights-of-way. The metric for walkable streets are building frontages facing 10 public spaces, ratios of building to streets, continuous sidewalks, and density. The manual explains that 11 “walkable streets are the foundation of projects that reduce carbon emissions and air pollution by creating 12 a multimodal travel environment, with the pedestrian at the center [9].” The Walkable Streets 13 prerequisites includes the following: 14

• 90% of new building frontage face a public space 15

Crosson 9

• Building to streets have a ratio of 1:3 for 15% of master plan 1 • Continuous sidewalks are provided along both sides of 90% of streets or frontages within the project 2 • A density of 7 dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) for residential and 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) for 3

nonresidential (excluding parking) for the entire master plan [9]. 4 Two complications exist for transit centers fulfilling this prerequisite. First, regional transit 5

centers have complicated logistical coordination. The need for wide road or rail line entrances to the site 6 can preclude sidewalks from surrounding all frontages on the site. Pedestrian bridges, underground 7 tunnels, and protected separate lanes all provide access and exist outside of the sidewalk paradigm on 8 which LEED ND relies. 9

Another condition common to regional transit centers is internal entrances that function as 10 frontages, see Figure 4. The public entrance to a popular restaurant could be located two levels below the 11 main street entrance. The public entrance and exit to the metro could exist within a shopping center. 12 From the LEED ND language, it is unclear if these important internal civic frontages are included as 13 building frontages. 14

Despite LEED ND’s stated intension to create “a multimodal travel environment” the current 15 metric greatly limits transit hubs from compliance. Since Walkable Streets is a prerequisite, the LEED 16 ND walkability definition can foreclose transit centers from participating in certification. Walkability can 17 be ensured without traditional sidewalks by using pedestrian and bicycle elements above and below the 18 ground plane. Dedicated rights-of-way for bicycle and pedestrian provide longer stretches of travel than 19 street sidewalks that are repetitively interrupted by car traffic, thus create better walkability[12]. 20

21 LAUSMP Case Study: Walkable Streets Prerequisite The external street frontage entrances on 22 LAUSMP all currently open up to parking lots and automobile drop off areas, see Figure 3. Although 23 this set up is largely a result of Los Angeles cultural dependence on automobiles, it is common for transit 24 centers to incorporate bus plazas and taxi areas. Fortunately, the LAUSMP is designed to turn these 25 current parking lot situations into public plazas and green space. LEED ND needs to address the need for 26 automobile access in these high traffic conditions. 27

LAUSMP has a series of internal thresholds that could be interpreted as frontages, see Figure 4. 28 The master plan is detailed with multi-level retail and residential areas to promote the financial viability 29 of expanding the station. In the master plan, many areas that are inside the station function as main 30 streets [10]. A significant fraction of the visitors to LAUSMP will never leave the site and navigate 31 through the project as a neighborhood. LEED ND needs to expand the definition of street frontages and 32 thoroughfares to include these conditions that capture the essence of building entrances. 33

34 Incompatible Credits 35

There are several credits that exist within the LEED ND scorecard that are incompatible with the 36 transit center operations. In aggregate, these credits total 25 points or 23% of the points available under 37 LEED ND. Not all points in any rating system are going to fit perfectly to every typology; however, the 38 walkable streets and tree lined streets credits should be modified. If adapted, the total credits that could 39 be ill suited for a transit hub project are only 11 points or 10% of the total possible points. 40 41 Walkable Streets Credit (12 points) The Neighborhood Pattern and Design category includes a credit 42 (12 points) titled Walkable Streets, representing 11% of the possible points awarded by the rating system. 43 Under this credit, a point is awarded for meeting each of sixteen characteristics listed under the topics: 44 facades and entries, ground-level use and parking, design speeds for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel, 45 and sidewalk intrusions. Many of the sixteen items are difficult for transit centers to achieve by virtue of 46 their functioning. For example, servicing of trains and busses necessitates access to larger back of house 47 and servicing areas. These infrastructural realities can lead to a ground plane that is chopped up and 48 cannot qualify for this 11% group of points, despite addressing walkability above and below the ground 49 plane. 50 51

Crosson 10

FIGURE 3 LAUSMP and Walkable Streets Conflicts 1

2 Los Angeles Union Station currently has three main entrance: one on Alameda Street (1) and two on 3 Vignes Street (2,3). All entrance currently front onto parking lots, making Union Station in its current 4 configuration ineligible for LEED ND certification. Photos were taken from google maps on May 2015 5 [13]. 6 7 Compact Development Credit (1-6 points) LEED ND defines compact development through the metric 8 of a weighted average of residential dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) and nonresidential floor area ratio 9 (FAR) [9]. Through several credits, LEED ND is biased toward inclusion of a strong residential 10 component to the project. Transit centers can be prime for residential development for people who want 11 easy access to transit. Residential development creates an imbedded customer group for onsite 12 commercial development and a citizen group invested in the maintenance and sense of place of the 13 project. However, transit centers face challenges in offering density. To achieve density, it is structurally 14 very expensive to build over rail yards where the foundation must bridge long spans. Additionally, if the 15 transit center is existing, a complicated layering of infrastructure of metro lines and underground parking 16 may make building taller more costly than in a typical urban condition. Further, if the transit hub includes 17 a historic asset, sight lines may be protected and the density incentivized by LEED ND may not be 18 possible to achieve. 19 20 Tree Lined Streets Credit (2 points) The Tree Lined and Shaded Streets (2 points) credit aims to 21 ameliorate heat island, contribute to localized carbon mitigation, and beautify and create a sense of place. 22 The credit outlines these requirements: 23

• Design and build the project to provide street trees on both sides of at least 60% of new and existing 24 streets within the project AND 25

• Obtain a registered landscape architect’s determination that planting details are appropriate for 26 growing healthy trees [9]. 27

In the case of regional transit centers, there are many unique conditions where tree lined streets are not 28 possible. Bridges and tunnels are the two most obvious exemptions where tree growth is impractical for 29

Crosson 11

bridges and impossible for tunnels. LEED ND needs to create an exemption for these exceptional 1 conditions, rather than strictly mandating trees on every street. 2

Further, LEED ND could promote better design. Tunnels could become an alternate criteria to 3 tree-lined streets and the design specification for health and safety could be included, including safe 4 lighting and air quality measures. In the case of LAUSMP, the design would have been incentivized to 5 address the current health and safety issues in Cesar Chavez Tunnel. 6 7 FIGURE 4 and FIGURE 5 Current Site Conditions for Incompatible Credits 8

9 Figure 4 [14] shows a view of LAUSMP from the west. Transit infrastructure largely prohibit the project 10 from gaining points under the Walkable Streets credit. However, the entrances to the Metro system 11 arguably function as street entrances through which visitors enter and exit the site. These unique 12 conditions need to be considered under the Walkable Streets intent. Figure 5 [15] is a view of the Cesar 13 Chavez tunnel that flanks the eastern boundary of the site. This tunnel currently prohibits LAUSMP from 14 gaining points under the Tree Lined Streets credit. 15 16 Stormwater Management Credit (4 credits) LEED ND rewards stormwater management “to reduce 17 pollution and hydrologic instability from stormwater, reduce flooding, promote aquifer recharge, and 18 improve water quality by emulating hydrological conditions [9].” The metric for fulfilling this intent is 19 percentile of rainwater event volume retained on site. 20

These stated objectives can be difficult for transit hubs to meet due to limited infiltration 21 opportunities. Infiltration can be a challenge for transit hubs in two ways: (1) large expanses of 22 impervious pavement necessitated for transportation functioning and (2) prior ground pollution through 23 oils and other machine byproducts. With a narrow amount of area to manage stormwater through natural 24 methods, transit hubs may need to rely on more expensive, engineered means such as dry wells or storm 25 water reuse for process or building water needs. 26 27 Solar Orientation Credit (1 credit) LEED ND offers two methods of documenting a project’s solar 28 orientation to gain credit for the passive energy savings. Projects can either provide proof through (1) 29 block orientation when a threshold is achieved under compact development or (2) building orientation. In 30 both cases, the requirement is that: 31

• 75% or more of blocks or buildings must be oriented in plus or minus fifteen degrees of the east-west 32 axis AND 33

Crosson 12

• The east-west lengths of those blocks or buildings must be as long as the north-south lengths of the 1 blocks or buildings [9]. 2

For transit centers, orientation is often dictated by large connecting pieces of infrastructure. 3 Interstates, rail lines, and metro lines can fix building and block orientation. Solar orientation 4 considerations are trumped by a need to logistically meet turning radii of large pieces of infrastructure and 5 successful coordination of multiple transit needs to access the site. This credit can be a difficult credit for 6 transit centers because of their complicated functionality demands. 7 8 LAUSMP Case Study: Incompatible Credits There are a handful of LEED ND credits that are 9 incompatible with LAUSMP. For the Solar Orientation credit, the existing station platforms and tracks is 10 not oriented in a way that is conducive to development with a dominant east-west axis. For the 11 Stormwater Management credit, the current LAUSMP site only allows for infiltration in the forecourt 12 along Alameda Street. For the Tree Lined Streets credit, a rail yard that spans over Cesar Chavez 13 Boulevard creates a long tunnel condition. An exemption is necessary for LAUSMP to be awarded the 14 credit for the tree lined streets through the rest of the project. 15 16 CONCLUSION 17

This analysis concluded that LEED ND could serve as a standardized tool for measuring 18 sustainability of transit hubs if a series of necessary modifications are completed. This paper suggests 19 updated metrics for connectivity and walkability to recognize linkages that occur above and below the 20 ground plane, inclusion of incentives for carbon emissions reduction and air quality monitoring, and 21 expanded exemptions for transit infrastructure from density and tree lined street calculations. 22

When making these modifications, LEED ND can empower good urban design for transit centers 23 and urban cores by adding new metrics for connectivity and walkability to include dedicated rights-of 24 way, way finding and multimodal transition times, and health and safety of tunnels and overpasses. 25 26 Recommended Modifications 27

LEED ND does not include any explicit requirement for projects to monitor carbon reduction, the 28 most important metric for climate change amelioration. Although carbon is addressed through secondary 29 indicators such as vehicle miles traveled, energy efficiency, and bicycle network and storage, points need 30 to be directly awarded for carbon management. To address this hole, LEED ND should first require 31 transit authorities to sign up to a third party carbon reporting system. Second, transit authorities should 32 pledge to report scope 1, 2, and 3 emission categories for their facilities as part of an annual sustainability 33 benchmarking. Unlike other requirements under LEED ND, this credit would necessitate annual action. 34

LEED ND should reward monitoring health and wellbeing indicators. Communities seeking 35 environmental justice need the information to prove the quality of their environment and its influence 36 upon the local community. Specifically, LEED ND could include the Federal Transit Administration's 37 emphasis on Ladders of Opportunity in the awarding funds for transit facilities as a criteria. In the case of 38 transit centers, monitoring air quality is a key environmental indicator and one that needs to be monitored 39 for impact on their community and neighbors. Based on the portfolio of the forms of transit accessing the 40 transit hub, this monitoring could be an advantage or disadvantage toward certification. 41

In order to make LEED ND inclusive of transit centers, a broadened understanding of types of 42 pedestrian and bicycle connections is needed for the Connected and Open Community and Walkable 43 Streets prerequisites. Rather than treating a project as fixed to two dimensions, the rating systems needs 44 to expand definitions and metrics of walkability and connectivity so that a more complex designs can be 45 measured. Rather than a single ground plane on which all interventions must register, LEED ND needs 46 to create methods for accounting for layered uses, multiple types of streets and frontages, and blurred 47 inside and outside spaces. Expanding past its roots in New Urbanism [8], the rating system should work 48 to fit to the definition of contemporary sustainability that urban areas are presenting embracing through 49 multimodal transit. 50 51

Crosson 13

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 I would like to acknowledge the Los Angeles Union Station Master Plan team for their 2 contributions to this research. Particularly important to this work were Gruen and Partners, Grimshaw 3 and Partners, BuroHappold Engineering, and Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants. Los Angeles 4 Metro employees and their board ensured that LEED ND certification was pursued on the project. 5 6 REFERENCES 7

1. Grand Central to curb carbon emissions. Newsday. http://www.newsday.com/news/new-8 york/grand-central. Accessed April 25, 2012. 9

2. RTD Fastracks. LEED Strategies for Denver New Union Station Transportation Facilities. 10 http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/dus_9. Accessed July 28, 2016. 11

3. Chicago Union Station Master Plan. http://www.unionstationmp.com/. Accessed July 20, 12 2016. 13

4. Ichniowski, T. Amtrak Plans $6.5B Redevelopment of D.C.'s Union Station. Engineering 14 News-Record, July 26, 2012. http://www.enr.com/articles/175-amtrak-plans-6-5b-15 redevelopment-of-d-c-s-union-station?v=preview. Accessed July 20, 2016. 16

5. Transbay Transit Center. Program Sustainability. http://transbaycenter.org/project/program-17 sustainability. Accessed July 20, 2016. 18

6. Talen, E., E. Allen, A. Bosse, J. Ahmann, J. Koschinsky, E. Wentz, and L. Anselin. LEED-19 ND as an urban metric. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 119, 2013, pp. 20-34. 20

7. Litman, T. Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning. 21 In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 22 2017, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, 23 pp. 10-15. 24

8. Garde, A. Sustainable By Design? Insights from U.S. LEED-ND pilot projects. Journal of 25 the American Planning Association, Vol 75, 2009, 424-440. 26

9. LEED Reference Guide for Neighborhood Development. United States Green Building 27 Council, 2014. 28

10. Los Angeles Metro. Overview. https://www.metro.net/projects/la-union-station/overview/. 29 Accessed July 28, 2016. 30

11. Luederitz, C., D. Lang, H. VonWehrden. A systematic review of guiding principles for 31 sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 118, 32 2013, pp. 40-52. 33

12. Schlossberg, M., N. Brown. Comparing Transit Oriented Developments by Walkability 34 Indicators. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 35 Board, No. 1887, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, 36 D.C., 2004, pp. 34-42. 37

13. Google Maps. Images captured August 2015. Accessed November 2, 2015. 38 14. Crosson, C. Photograph of Los Angeles Metro Entrance. Taken July 15, 2016. 39 15. Garner, S. Directions to the Garden at Los Angeles Union Station. http://www.movie-40

trains.com/laus.html. Accessed July 1, 2016. 41