BCDFGHIJKLMNOP
1
NameInstitution/OrganizationPosition/Role1.1. Percentage of fleet vehicles that are zero/near-zero emissionsOne alternative approach would be to ask about the percentage of expenditures on fleet vehicles within the previous three years that are on zero/near-zero emissions vehicles. To what extent would you support this alternative?2.1. Percentage of students and employees using more sustainable commuting optionsPlease provide any suggestions you may have for Exemplary Practice credits related to Transportation.Additional comments on Transportation in STARSAASHE staff response
2
Ryan KmetzUniversity of Maryland Baltimore CountyAsst. Dir. SustainabilityHow are biodiesel vehicles counted? It is unclear if golf carts/GEMS fall into this area. Support replacing the current approach with the expenditure-based alternativeWhile this is valuable data it is burdensome to collect. I think this is perfect time for AASHE to create a credit to quantify and reward HEIs that have adopted and implemented permanent teleworking and telelearning options. I think if such a credit is drafted it needs to be more than a binary "do you offer permanent hybrid options."

I'd propose asking
1) if the HEI has conducted an assessment of jobs and classes that can be effectively executed with remote components
2) How many jobs are remote 3 days, 4 days, and 5 days per week (specifically exclude 1 or 2 days per week)
3) How many classes are hybrid
4) How are remote workers and learners credited in parking pass reductions?
5) Quantify the avoided emissions based on the population and time hybrid.
To simplify reporting and ensure a greater degree of comparability, it is proposed that the Campus Fleet credit be limited to cars, vans, trucks and buses. The impact of using biodiesel and other alternative fuels and high efficiency vehicles is largely captured in an institution's GHG emissions performance. This credit is oriented toward an institution's role in raising the visibility of and supporting markets for ZEVs/PHEVs.

A telecommuting exemplary practice credit would be interesting. We will add it to the list for consideration.

We will not be proposing the expenditure-based alternative for fleet vehicles because its impacts are largely already captured elsewhere, there are concerns about whether institutions will be willing and able to share expenditure amounts, and, most critically, adding the indicator would significantly add to the reporting burden.
3
Michael PetersSway Mobility IncCEOThe GHG implications of hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell are vastly different than battery electric, so lumping them together seems counterintuitive. Without complicating matters too much, each should be weighted differently, and then provided a bonus if the hybrid or BEV is fueled from a renewable source. For hydrogen fuel cell, the origin and manufacture of the hydrogen should also be a factor as steam-methane reforming is arguable worse than petroleum sourced fuel.Do not support the the expenditure-based alternativeIt would be helpful to have carshare as an option to begin to track this data.Generally favorable to leveraging other (qualified) certification programsI don't agree with dropping the Support for Sustainable Transportation credit. By nature certification programs are often prescriptive, and many practitioners (myself included) have used certification programs expressly to leverage best practices. Building support for these programs is critical to reduce transportation emissions, which (as we all well know, I know...) are the largest single contributor to GHG emissions. Rather, why not encourage these programs through the credit and allow for exemplary credit for pushing them to be more sustainable (to use a very biased example, by implementing EV carshare rather than just carshare).It does seem important to give some consideration to the origin of the hydrogen used, although the GHG impacts of fuel usage would be captured in that section of STARS. We will research the issue further with an eye toward adding some additional guidance.

Because the various strategies that may be employed to shift commuting behavior may or may not be relevant in all contexts, an institution's support for shared transportation options (micromobility, public transit, car sharing. and ride sharing) and its ZEV infrastructure will be considered for inclusion as exemplary practice credits.
4
Shoshana DodgeTufts UniversityEducation & Outreach Program AdministratorI would think it is going to take universities a while to convert 100% of their fleet over to zero-emission vehicles. However, it is a really great goal that we should work towards and we will need to work towards it to become carbon neutral.Support including BOTH the alternative and current approachI love that you included "or the percentage of trips for which the students/employees" use sustainable commuting. That is really helpful for surveying these groups. Rather than just using Massachusetts Rideshare Program for guidance, I am part of a SIMAP Commuting working group that has been working on guidance for how to measure the commuting behavior at your institution. Our guidance will be more comprehensive and helpful to higher education institutions than the MA Rideshare Program. Jenn Andrews at SIMAP is the main contact.Thank you for the feedback!

We will not be proposing the expenditure-based alternative for fleet vehicles because its impacts are largely already captured elsewhere, there are concerns about whether institutions will be willing and able to share expenditure amounts, and, most critically, adding the indicator would significantly add to the reporting burden.
5
Aaron FodgeColorado State UniversityAlternatived Transportation ManagerSupport including BOTH the alternative and current approachI would suggest renaming this section Transportation Demand Management - Mode Split as proper parlance for the STARS strategy.# of TDM-CP certified professionals on staff; Best Workplaces for CommutersIn the interest of continuity and because TDM addresses so much more than the mode split, we will be proposing to retain the existing credit title.

Because the various strategies that may be employed to shift commuting behavior may or may not be relevant in all contexts, an institution's support for shared transportation options (micromobility, public transit, car sharing. and ride sharing) and its ZEV infrastructure will be considered for inclusion as exemplary practice credits.

We will not be proposing the expenditure-based alternative for fleet vehicles because its impacts are largely already captured elsewhere, there are concerns about whether institutions will be willing and able to share expenditure amounts, and, most critically, adding the indicator would significantly add to the reporting burden.
6
Michael LizotteUNC CharlotteSustainability OfficerThe credit could use an optional input to describe contracted vehicles that are used regularly and in lieu of campus-owned vehicles (for example, hiring companies to provide a campus-only bus service, to replace trade shops/vehicles, to haul wastes, or to provide short-term rentals). That will give us an idea how much campuses are using outsourcing to reduce their fossil-fueled fleet numbers.Support including BOTH the alternative and current approachno commentThe current EP for BFU only recognizes Gold/Platinum status (= 39 schools); please consider partial points for Bronze and Silver accomplishments so we can encourage more participation. CalStart Sustainable Fleet charges $5,250/yr for their rating (10-to-100-times the BFU fees), and only 3 colleges have current ratings -- so we need a better idea of an alternate that will be AASHE-Approved. For example, the NAFA Green Fleet Award application process is about the same amount of work (and low/no fees) as a BFU application. Fair point re: contracting out fleet functions. I'm unsure what that would look like, but will explore it.

We will consider the changes you suggest when we create the Exemplary Practice Credit catalog for the new version.
7
Mat ThijssenUniversity of WaterlooDirector of SustainabilityI agree with the simplification. While not discussed in the briefing, I do think it is a material issue and should have higher weighting than it is given in 2.2.Support including BOTH the alternative and current approachThis looks to stay largely consistent - I like it and would suggest to keep, as well as maintain point weighting from 2.2.I'm deeply concerned about dropping the "Support for Sustainable Transportation" credit. There are four reasons for this:
1) Institutions are only a part of the transportation choice matrix - public services for transit, cycling infrastructure, etc. also guide individual employee choices, and I do think that STARS should recognize what the INSTITUTION is doing, not just the existing transportation patterns/culture (for better or worse) of the local community, which I may argue have a heavier role in modal share than institutional programs
2) transportation modesplit (which is the outcome indicator) often lags behind new programs or services. People make choices about travel patterns to work/school during major life events - getting a new job, when they need to replace a car, etc., so modal shifts are notoriously stubborn to move; again, I think STARS should not lose focus on the outcome indicator, but should reward institutional practice and support that will help make those choices easier as they arise - this is consistent with so many other credits that look to institutional action in addition to impact;
3) I think not consistently asking institutions this would erode benchmarking - understanding what other institutions are doing is an enormously valuable part of STARS. It gives us places to look for program ideas, helps drive understanding between which interventions/sets of policies correlate with improvements to the modesplit, etc. Leaving this to optional will diminish if not outright eliminate that analytical ability through STARS, and
4) This is not at all difficult to report on - anyone who is in a position to collect and respond to data on modal split will likely be aware of or could easily compile the information on sustainable commuting programs and services that exist on their campus
Because the various strategies that may be employed to shift commuting behavior may or may not be relevant in all contexts, an institution's support for shared transportation options (micromobility, public transit, car sharing. and ride sharing) and its ZEV infrastructure will be considered for inclusion as exemplary practice credits.

We will not be proposing the expenditure-based alternative for fleet vehicles because its impacts are largely already captured elsewhere, there are concerns about whether institutions will be willing and able to share expenditure amounts, and, most critically, adding the indicator would significantly add to the reporting burden.
8
Kelsey BechtholdtCentral Washington UniversitySustainabilty Education Program Specialist/ UW Sustainable Transportation Master's Canidate Presence of Multimodal transportation hubs on/near campusadd a bonus credit related to institutions that employ mobility energy productivity metricsWe will consider the changes you suggest when we create the Exemplary Practice Credit catalog for the new version.
9
Erika HennonUniversity of California, IrvineSustainable Transportation Programs Manager50Support replacing the current approach with the expenditure-based alternative75Best Workplaces for Commuters, ACT Awards/CertificatesI think separating out hybrid/near-zero emission vehicles would also be beneficial - specifically plug-in hybridsWe will consider the changes you suggest when we create the Exemplary Practice Credit catalog for the new version.

We will not be proposing the expenditure-based alternative for fleet vehicles because its impacts are largely already captured elsewhere, there are concerns about whether institutions will be willing and able to share expenditure amounts, and, most critically, adding the indicator would significantly add to the reporting burden.
10
Leah CeperleyUniversity of DaytonSustainability Planning ManagerSupport replacing the current approach with the expenditure-based alternativeThank you for the feedback!

We will not be proposing the expenditure-based alternative for fleet vehicles because its impacts are largely already captured elsewhere, there are concerns about whether institutions will be willing and able to share expenditure amounts, and, most critically, adding the indicator would significantly add to the reporting burden.
11
Carmen Primo PerezUniversity of TasmaniaSenior Sustainability Officer• Page 4: “Vehicles designed for off-road use (e.g., forklifts, mowers, tractors, and agricultural equipment) and highly specialized vehicles for which no zero-emission alternatives are available may be excluded”. Define ‘available’ - There are often alternatives available, but they are experimental or very expensive, etc.
• Page 5: Should it be clarified that public transport buses that provide ‘dedicated’ services to campuses are not included. Not really dedicated, just service campuses as part of the system.
Do not support the the expenditure-based alternative• Page 6 Rationale: “Walking and cycling offer health benefits as well”: also micromobility, as well as public transport to a certain extent.
• Page 7 Required documentation: “(…) transportation to and from class (…)” can be confusing and interpreted as not just commuting to campus, but how they are moving between classes if they are at different facilities. Suggest replacing with: “(…) transportation from home to campus and vice versa (…)”
• Page 10, More sustainable commuting options: There is an increasing rise of electric scooters (at least in Australia), it might be worth either : broadening the “Cycling” category to something like “Personal Mobility” or “Micromobility” to pick up both modes; or including electric scooters as a separate category
Offering salary sacrificing options for sustainable vehicles (cars, bike, motorcycles, scooters, etc)• Page 3, Paragraph 2: “non-motorized and shared mobility options”: Are e-bikes considered ‘motorized’? Or e-cars for that matter? Should it be “non-fossil fuel based and shared mobility options”.We will be proposing edits to address your points re "health benefits", micro mobility options, "non-motorized modes" and "to and from class". Thank you!
12
Silvia CroftCalifornia State University San MarcosCommuter Programs Assistant 77% - 132 fleet vehicles, 102 are zero or near zero emissionsSupport including BOTH the alternative and current approach19% use more sustainable commuting options Thank you for the feedback!

We will not be proposing the expenditure-based alternative for fleet vehicles because its impacts are largely already captured elsewhere, there are concerns about whether institutions will be willing and able to share expenditure amounts, and, most critically, adding the indicator would significantly add to the reporting burden.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100