Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STREETLIGHT POLICY
AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Final Report
District Department of Transportation 2000 14th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009
March 2005
d.
Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................3 2.1 Definitions.................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Optics ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Streetlight Hardware ...................................................................................... 5 2.2 AASHTO Roadway Lighting Requirements ............................................................. 7 2.3 Light Sources ........................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Poles......................................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Photosensor .............................................................................................................. 15 2.6 Globes ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Lateral Distribution Patterns .................................................................................... 16 2.8 Pole Placement Configurations................................................................................ 17 2.9 Cutoff Fixtures ......................................................................................................... 18 3. EXISTING DDOT PRACTICE .............................................................................................20 3.1 Poles......................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Lamps....................................................................................................................... 22 3.3 Wattage .................................................................................................................... 22 3.4 Illumination Levels .................................................................................................. 23 3.5 Special Requirements............................................................................................... 23 4. ILLUMINATION STANDARDS RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................24 4.1 General Standards for Illumination Levels .............................................................. 24 4.2 Other Standards and Design Criteria ....................................................................... 25 4.2.1 Uniformity Ratios ........................................................................................ 25 4.2.2 Veiling Luminance Ratios ........................................................................... 25 4.2.3 Vertical Light Distribution Patterns............................................................. 26 4.2.4 Lateral Light Distribution Patterns .............................................................. 26 4.2.5 Minimum Light Pole Spacing...................................................................... 26 4.3 Lighting Illumination of Special Areas.................................................................... 27 5. GENERAL HARDWARE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................28 5.1 Overview of Major Changes.................................................................................... 28 5.2 Miscellaneous Issues................................................................................................ 30 5.3 Factors Influencing the Hardware Selection............................................................ 30 5.3.1 Context......................................................................................................... 31 5.3.2 Historic significance .................................................................................... 31 5.3.3 Significance of street.................................................................................... 33 5.3.4 Location of electrical power line ................................................................. 36 5.4 Exempt Locations .................................................................................................... 36
March 2005
Final Report
March 2005
ii
Final Report
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This policy guide is an outcome of efforts from a number of people inside and outside DDOT. The following people provided valuable contributions to this project in steering and conducting the study, formulating the policies and providing inputs:
Jama Abdi Kristina N. Alg Laurence Aurbach Samira Cook John Deatrick Michael Dorsey Edwin Edokwe Manzur Elahi Larry Green Nurul Haque
Colleen Smith Hawkinson Susan Hinton Ray Kukulski Ken Laden Surekha Lingala Mark Loud William McLeod Jack McKay Elizabeth Miller Ann Simpson-Mason Yavocka Young
March 2005
iii
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) undertook a comprehensive study entitled District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines to develop a uniform streetlight policy throughout the City. This study aims at providing the District with welldefined guidelines and standards for future streetlight deployment. The guidelines will be implemented in an evolutionary fashion along with future road construction projects. The streetlight pole replacements will follow the defined guidelines rather than the usual practice of replacement-in-kind. This study encompasses research on technology, design principles, and policies; vendor interviews; interviews with other state agencies; review of existing DDOT practices; and recommendations for implementation. During the study, DDOT formed a panel of advisors to serve on a steering committee to ensure that the project addressed concerns from the stakeholders. The steering committee consisted of representatives from various agencies and citizen groups. The committee held a series of meetings to define the direction of the project, evaluate various alternatives, and provide specific recommendations on various aspects of the streetlight policy issues. Finally, the draft policy was kept open to public comments for a period of time. This process included citizens' comments, review by other agencies and a public meeting. A summary of the policy recommendations is presented below.
March 2005
ES-1
Final Report
HARDWARE RECOMMENDATIONS
Various types of streetlight hardware are recommended for various conditions based on: 1. Non-historic streets (underground power line or overhead power line) 2. Historic streets 3. Special Streets Some hardware selection will also be based on the context of the surroundings. For non-historic areas with underground power lines, the citizens will be given an opportunity to select either a Decorative Teardrop (alternatively Cobraheads, if cost prohibits) or Upright poles in place of the existing Cobrahead pendant poles. The pendant poles are recommended for non-historic streets, as they are economical. For non-historic areas with overhead power lines, the lighting arm is the only option for selection. A Decorative Teardrop arm is preferred; however, Cobraheads can be used, if cost prohibits. The use of upright poles (e.g., Numbers 14, 16, 18) will continue for historic streets. Several important streets were designated as Special Streets (alternatively known as Capital Avenues), for which Twin-20 poles were generally recommended. A decorative Teardrop arm will be used where overhead power lines exist. The developed guidelines will apply to the City in general; however, areas with their own regulations are exempt from these requirements or portions thereof. These exempt locations include, but are not be limited to, the Downtown Streetscape Area, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), and Monumental Core Area. DDOT reserves the right to exempt certain areas on a case-by-case basis and pick any special streetlight fixture.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The following design principles are made part of the policy: 1. The guidelines of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) were adopted as the District's policy for lighting criteria. 2. The design should use maximum spacing of streetlight poles. A minimum spacing between poles of 60 ft has been specified; however, it is not a recommendation, but only an absolute minimum. The designer should ensure that the spacing fulfills the following objectives, yet meeting the AASHTO guidelines: Minimum number of poles Lowest acceptable wattage Maximum possible spacing 3. The design should be based on lower wattage lamps so as to provide flexibility for using higher level of illumination in the future, if necessary. This can be easily done by replacing lower wattage lamps with higher wattage lamps. For example, No. 16
March 2005 ES-2
Final Report
poles should be designed for a maximum 250 Watt while up to 400 Watt is allowed; No. 14 poles should be designed for a maximum of 100 Watt while up to 150 Watt is allowed. 4. The design should avoid using 400-Watt conversion kits in residential areas. 5. The height of the pole should be determined based on the context of the surroundings, such as the height of buildings, roadway width, sidewalk width, etc. 6. The design must consider reduction of glare into drivers' and pedestrians' eyes, and enhancement of visibility. Appropriate refractive globes can effectively reduce direct glare by softening and spreading the light distribution. Shields can also be used to aim the lights so that they are not directly visible from the roads, alleys, pathways, and windows, as needed.
CONCLUSIONS
DDOT should periodically review these guidelines and make any necessary modifications within the general framework. AASHTO is currently developing a revised streetlighting guideline and some of its contents have been used in this document. Once AASHTO finalizes this guideline, any additional appropriate elements should be incorporated in DC Policies. DDOT should also assess the overall technology and its cost-effectiveness from time to time to take advantage of new developments offering enhanced safety, economy and aesthetics. An extensive use of Teardrop remains a question of funding availability and agency priority. Similarly, the use of metal halide or other similar white light-producing lamp is also a question of cost; therefore, its cost should be monitored in future.
March 2005
ES-3
Final Report
1. INTRODUCTION
Street-lighting in urban areas supports multiple objectives. Its primary and fundamental objective is to provide the light necessary for safe passage of motorists and pedestrians at night. In addition, it is an important aesthetic element of the street furniture and its appearance often represents the significance and history of the area. Therefore, it is important that the streetlight fixtures follow certain standards based on the needs and settings of the area. In the past, the lack of a policy has resulted in non-uniform lighting hardware and illumination levels throughout the city. Washington is the nation's capital with an area of 68.25 square miles and a population of approximately 600,000. Pierre-Charles L'Enfant designed the City's basic layout and plan, which features from the Capitol building to parks. In terms of the Citys importance, it houses the US Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, and many other important government buildings, national landmarks, museums and memorials. In terms of look, this city is very different than other US cities with its characteristic magnificent buildings with limited heights and many historic areas. This uniqueness and the historic significance of the City must be reflected through all aesthetic elements including the appearance of streetlights. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) undertook a study entitled District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines to develop a uniform streetlight policy throughout the City indicating its significance. This study is aimed at providing the District with well-defined guidelines for future streetlight construction. The guidelines will be implemented in an evolutionary fashion along with future road construction and streetscape projects. The streetlight pole replacements will follow the defined guidelines rather than the usual practice of replacement-in-kind. This document outlines a policy and not a regulation or standard. The study involved conducting research, interviewing vendors and various state agencies, reviewing existing DDOT practice and finally coming up with the recommendations. DDOT formed a panel of advisors to serve on a committee to steer this study. The committee was formed from members of relevant agencies, including citizen groups' representation. The committee held a series of meetings and directed the course of the study, made evaluations of various alternatives and provided specific recommendations on various aspects of the streetlight policy issues. The research summary and the advisory committee meeting minutes are presented in Appendix A. Finally, the draft policy was kept open to public comments for a period of time. This process included citizens' comments, review by other agencies and a public meeting. This document contains a set of strategic policy recommendations for future construction of streetlights in the District of Columbia. It includes four other chapters in addition to this Introduction (Chapter 1) and an Appendix A. Chapter 2 presents background information and basic definitions for streetlights. Chapter 3 describes the existing DDOT practice. Chapter 4 describes the illumination standards recommended for the District. Chapter 5 discusses the streetlight hardware recommendations and presents a simplified streetlight
March 2005
Final Report
design illustration of roadways going through various types of areas. Chapter 6 discusses the recommendations for future.
March 2005
Final Report
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This chapter presents definitions of key terminologies related to streetlight design. It also discusses fundamental concepts related to lighting.
2.1 DEFINITIONS
The definitions provided here are broadly classified in two different groups: 1) optics, and 2) streetlight hardware. The definitions in each group are described below. 2.1.1 Optics
Average Initial Illuminance: The average level of horizontal illuminance on the pavement area of a traveled way at the time the lighting system is installed with new lamps and clean luminaries; expressed in average footcandles (lux) for the pavement area. Average Maintained Illuminance: The average level of horizontal illuminance on the pavement when the output of the lamp and luminaire is reduced by the maintenance factors; expressed in average footcandles (lux) for the pavement area. Candela: The unit of luminous intensity. The term candle was formerly used. Candlepower: The luminous intensity in a specified direction; which is expressed in candelas. Color rendering: A general expression used for the effect of a light source on the color appearance of objects in conscious or subconscious comparison with their color appearance under a reference light source. Color Rendering Index (CRI): A measure of the color shift the objects undergo when illuminated by the light source as compared with those same objects when illuminated by a reference source of comparable color temperature. Cutoff angle (of a luminaire): The angle that is measured up from nadir, between the vertical axis and the first line of sight at which the bare source is not visible. Footcandle: The illuminance on a one-square-foot surface in area, on which there is a light flux of one lumen that is uniformly distributed. One footcandle = 10.76 lux. Foot Lambert: The uniform luminance of a surface emitting or reflecting light at the rate of one lumen per square foot. It is a unit of luminance or brightness. Glare: The sensation produced within the visual field by luminance that exceeds the eyes ability to adapt. This can cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
March 2005
Final Report
a. Nuisance glare: It is known as annoyance glare that causes complaints. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) defines nuisance glare as the light shining in my window phenomenon. b. Discomfort glare: The glare that causes physical discomfort but does not keep the viewer from seeing an object. c. Disability glare: The effect of a bright light source that causes the stray light to scatter in the eye. The stray light obscures the primary image on the retina and restricts the viewer from seeing the object. Illuminance: The time rate of flow of light is defined as luminous flux. Illuminance is the density of the luminous flux incident on a uniformly illuminated surface. Light Pollution: The haze or glow that reduces the ability of a person to view the nighttime sky. It is the stray light from luminaire, which is directed up into the skies; it is also referred to as sky glow. Light Trespass: The light from a luminaire that falls onto neighboring space, or into windows of adjacent building. It is also referred to as spill light. Louver (or louver grid): A series of baffles used to shield a source at certain angles, to either absorb or block unwanted light, or to reflect or redirect light. They are usually arranged in a geometric pattern. Lumen: A unit of measure of the quantity of light. The amount of light that falls on an area of one square foot, every point of which is one foot from the source (i.e., a sphere) of one candela (candle), is defined as one lumen. A light source of one candela emits a total of 12.57 lumens. Lumen depreciation: The decrease in lamp lumen that occurs as a lamp is operated until failure. Luminaire: A complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps and ballast (where applicable), and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Luminaire dirt depreciation: The dirt or dust that accumulates on luminaires decreasing the total output of light, lowering the overall efficiency of the system. Luminaire efficiency: The ratio of luminous flux (lumens) emitted by a luminaire to that emitted by the lamp or lamps used therein. Luminance: The luminous intensity of a surface in a given direction per unit of that surface as viewed from that direction. Luminous Efficacy: The rate of converting the electrical energy into visible energy, which is measured in lumens per watt.
March 2005
Final Report
Lux: The International System (SI) unit of illuminance. It is defined as the amount of light on a surface of one square meter all points of which are one meter from a uniform source of one candela. One lux = 0.0929 footcandle. Uniformity of Illuminance: The ratio of average footcandles (lux) of illuminance on the surface area to the footcandles (lux) at the point of minimum illuminance on the pavement. It is generally called the uniformity ratio. Uniformity of Luminance: The Average-Level-To-Minimum Point method uses the average luminance on a surface of the roadway design area between two adjacent luminaries, divided by the lowest value at any point in the area. The Maximum-ToMinimum Point method uses the maximum and minimum values between the same adjacent luminaires. The uniformity of luminance (avg/min and max/min) considers the traveled portion of the roadway, except for divided highways that has different designs on each side. Uplight: The percentage of lamp lumens directed at or above 90 degrees from a luminaire. Veiling Luminance: A luminance superimposed on the retinal image that reduces its contrast, resulting in visual performance and decreased visibility; produced by bright areas in the visual field. 2.1.2 Streetlight Hardware
Ballast: A coil of wire and/or related electronic components used to limit the amount or electric current flowing through a lamp. Almost all lamps used in streetlighting require ballasts except incandescent lamps. Base: A lower part of a streetlight pole that supports the shaft. Bracket (mast arm): An attachment to a pole from which a luminaire is suspended. Breakaway Base: A base designed to yield when struck by a vehicle, thereby minimizing injury to the occupants of the vehicles and damage to the vehicle itself. Head: The part of the luminaire that holds the lamp socket and mounting hanger or collar. The assembly will be referred as either the head or the body, when the mounting collar is part of, or attached directly to, the reflector housing, as in a clamshell style. High-Mast Lighting: The illumination of a large area by means of a group of luminaires mounted on fixed orientation at the top of a high mast, generally 65 ft or higher. Lamppost: A standard support provided with the necessary internal attachments for wiring and the external attachments for the bracket and luminaire.
March 2005
Final Report
Photocontrol: The device that is usually cylindrical and the size of a tin can, contains a light sensitive element and other electromechanical or electronic components to turn the lights on at night and off during the day. Reflector: Any polished or light colored object used in optical control to change the direction of light rays as opposed to just block or absorb it. Refractor: A transparent panel or dish that also serves as a lamp cover and has molded ridges to bend the light in desired directions. Streetlight Pole: A pole used for the purpose of supporting street luminaire(s). The luminaire(s) may be either installed on (upright poles) or suspended from the pole (pendant poles). Figure 1 shows the different components of poles. The upright poles include Nos. 18, 16, 14 and Twin-20; and the pendant poles include Cobrahead, 5A Alley Pole and Teardrop.
Arms
Shaft Shaft
Base
Base
Upright Pole
Pendant Pole
March 2005
Final Report
Lavg
2 (cd/m ) 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2
Uniformity Lavg/Lmin 3.5:1 3.5:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 3.5:1 4:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 Lmax/Lmin 6:1 6:1 5:1 5:1 6:1 5:1 5:1 6:1 5:1 6:1 8:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1
footlamberts 0.17 0.12 0.29 0.23 0.17 0.35 0.26 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.12 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.06
0.3:1
0.4:1
0.4:1
0.4:1
Source: The IESNA Lighting Standard Handbook, Ninth Edition, IES, 2000. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Source: An Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting, AASHTO, 1984.
March 2005
Final Report
Commercial Intermediate Residential Major b Commercial Intermediate Residential b Collector Commercial Intermediate Residential Local b Commercial Intermediate Residential Alleys b Commercial Intermediate Residential Sidewalks b Commercial Intermediate Residential Pedestrian Ways and Bicycle Lanes d
a b c d
3:1
4:1
6:1
Source: The IESNA Lighting Standard Handbook, Ninth Edition, IES, 2000. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Source: An Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting, AASHTO, 1984. Both mainline and ramps. Expressways with full control of access are covered in the section on Freeways. This assumes a separate facility. Facilities adjacent to a vehicular roadway should use the illuminance or luminance levels for that roadway.
AASHTO is currently updating the design guide and Table 3 provides the suggested lighting design values proposed in the AASHTOs Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft version. Generally, the illuminance technique is used for streetlighting design. The selection of threshold values is based upon several factors, as stated below: 1. Functional classification of the facility (e.g., arterial, collector, etc.) 2. Type of land use (e.g., commercial, residential, etc.) 3. Classification of pavement (e.g., R1, R2, etc., based on type of pavement material)
March 2005
Final Report
Table 3. AASHTO Suggested Maintained Illuminance and Luminance Values for Roadways
Average Maintained Illuminance R1 (Lux) (min) (min) 2 2 2 (min) (min) (min) (max) b (max) Footcandles (Lux) Footcandles (Lux) Footcandles (Lux) Footcandles (Lux) cd/m
2
Roadway and Walkway Classification Minimum Illuminance Average Maintained Luminance R4 Lavg Foot-lamberts R2 R3
Land Use
Lv(max)/ Lavg d
Other freeways
Commercial Intermediate Residential Commercial Intermediate Residential Commercial Intermediate Residential 10 8 5 8 6 4 6 5 3 4 3 2 0.4 0.3 0.2 6 4 3 0.6 0.4 0.3 6 4 3 0.6 0.4 0.3 5 4 3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.3 9 7 4 0.8 0.7 0.4 9 7 4 0.8 0.7 0.4 8 6 4 0.7 0.6 0.4 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 0.7 0.6 0.4 12 9 6 1.1 0.8 0.6 12 9 6 1.1 0.8 0.6 10 8 5 0.9 0.7 0.5 4:1 4:1 4:1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 15 11 7 1.4 1.0 0.7 15 11 7 1.4 1.0 0.7 11 10 7 1.0 0.9 0.7 4:1 4:1 4:1 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.35 0.26 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.12 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.06
8 to 12 8 to 10 6 to 8 10 8 6 12 9 6
0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 0.9 0.6 to 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.6
8 to 12 8 to 10 6 to 8 14 12 9 17 13 9
0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 0.9 0.6 to 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.6 1.2 0.8
8 to 12 8 to 10 6 to 8 14 12 9 17 13 9
0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 0.9 0.6 to 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.6 1.2 0.8
8 to 12 8 to 10 6 to 8 13 10 8 15 11 8
0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 0.9 0.6 to 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.7 1.4 1.0 0.7
3:1 or 4:1 3:1 or 4:1 3:1 or 4:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1
0.4 to 0.6 0.4 to 0.6 0.4 to 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.6
0.12 to 0.17 0.12 to 0.17 0.12 to 0.17 0.29 0.23 0.17 0.35 0.26 0.17
3.5:1 3.5:1 3.5:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 3.5:1 4:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1
6:1 6:1 6:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 6:1 5:1 5:1 6:1 5:1 6:1 8:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1
0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1
Collector
Local
Alleys
Sidewalks 10 6 3 15 0.9 0.6 0.3 1.4 14 9 4 22 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.0 14 9 4 22 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.0 13 8 4 19 1.2 0.7 0.4 1.8 3:1 4:1 6:1 3:1 Use illuminance requirements
Source: Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft, AASHTO, 2004. a Use R3 requirements for walkway/bikeway surface materials other than the pavement types shown. b Higher uniformity ratios are acceptable for elevated ramps near high mast poles. c Meet either the Illuminance design method requirements or the Luminance design method requirements and meet veiling luminance requirements for both the Illuminance and the Luminance design methods. d Lv(max) occurs at initial lumens, therefore, use Lave initial, not Lavg maintained . Note: 1 There may be situations when higher level of illuminance is justified. 2 Physical roadway conditions may require adjustment of spacing determined from the base levels of illuminance indicated above.
March 2005
Final Report
The factors used in the above tables are discussed below. Functional Classification of the Facility The following classifications are those recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America1 and AASHTO2. 1. Freeway: This is a divided major roadway with full control of access and with no crossing at grade. It applies to toll as well as non-toll roads. a. Freeway A: This designates roadways with greater visual complexity and high traffic volumes. This type of freeway is usually found in major metropolitan areas in or near the central core. It operates through much of the early evening hours of darkness at or near design capacity. b. Freeway B: This designates all other divided roadways with full control of access where lighting is needed. 2. Expressway: A divided major roadway for through traffic with partial control of access and generally at major crossroads with interchanges. Parkways are generally known as expressways for non-commercial traffic within parks and park-like areas. 3. Major/Principal Arterial: That part of the roadway system serving as the principal network for through traffic flow. The routes connect important rural highways entering the city and areas of principal traffic generation. 4. Minor Arterial: The roadway that provides relatively high speeds and least interference to through traffic flow with little or no access control. It provides direct access to abutting properties, have frequent at-grade intersections, have pedestrian movements along and across the roadway, accommodate bicyclist unless specifically limited and support public transportation. 5. Collector: The roadways servicing traffic between major and local roadways. These are roadways used mostly for traffic movements within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. 6. Local: The roadways used mainly for direct access to residential, commercial, industrial, or other abutting property. They do not include roadways that carry through traffic. The long local roadways are generally divided into short sections by collector roadway systems. 7. Alley: A narrow public ways within a block, which is generally used for vehicular access to the rear of abutting properties. 8. Sidewalk: A paved or otherwise improved areas for pedestrian use, located within the public street right-of-way, which also contains roadways for vehicular traffic. 9. Pedestrian Walkway: A public facility for pedestrian traffic not necessarily within the right-of-way of a vehicular traffic roadway. They include skywalks (pedestrian
1
American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, ANSI/IES RP-8.1983; Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 2 Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft, AASHTO, 2004.
March 2005
10
Final Report
overpasses), subwalks (pedestrian tunnels), walkways giving access to parks or block interiors, and midblock street crossings. 10. Bicycle lane: A portion of roadway, or shoulder, or any facility that has been explicitly designated for the use by bicyclists. Area Classifications 1. Commercial: A business development of a municipality where ordinarily there are many pedestrians during night hours. This definition applies to densely developed business areas outside, as well as within, the central section of a municipality. The area contains land use that attracts a relatively heavy volume of nighttime vehicular traffic or pedestrian traffic, or both, on a frequent basis. 2. Intermediate: Those areas often characterized by moderately heavy nighttime pedestrian activities such as in blocks having libraries, community recreation centers, large apartment buildings, industrial buildings, or neighborhood retail stores of a municipality. 3. Residential: A residential area, or a mixture of residential and small commercial establishments characterized by few pedestrians at night. This includes areas with single-family homes, townhouses, and small apartment buildings. Certain land uses, such as office and industrial parks, may fit into any of the above classifications. The classification selected should be consistent with the expected nighttime pedestrian activities. Road Surface Classification The road surface classifications (as shown in Table 4) are used when designing a roadway lighting system. It is divided into four categories (R1, R2, R3 and R4) depending on the reflectance characteristics of the pavement. Each category has its own values of reflectance for specified angles. Table 4. Road Surface Classification3
Class R1 Qo* 0.10 Description Portland cement concrete road surface. Asphalt road surface with minimum of 15 percent of the aggregate composed of artificial brightener (e.g., Synopal) aggregates (e.g., labradorite, quartzite) Asphalt road surface with an aggregate composed of a minimum 60 percent gravel (size greater than 10 millimeters) Asphalt road surface with 10 to 60 percent artificial brightener in aggregate mix. (Not normally used in North America) Asphalt road surface (regular and carpet seal) with dark aggregates (e.g., trap rock, blast furnace slag); rough texture after some month of use (typical highways) Asphalt road surface with very smooth texture Mode of Reflectance Mostly diffuse
R2
0.07
R3
0.07
Slightly specular
R4
*
0.08
Mostly specular
Source: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. ANSI/IES RP-8.1983; Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
March 2005
11
Final Report
Fluorescent
Lamps that pass electricity through a gas enclosed tube to create light Usually used indoor and in some cases for signage A high-intensity discharge device producing light by excitation of mercury vapors (or passing electricity through a gas) to emit a bluish white light High intensity discharge arc tube in which light is produced by radiation of exited Metal Halide
Temperature sensitive
Mercury Vapor
Inefficient operation Light output drops over life (2-3 yrs) Delayed hot restart Hot restart can take several minutes High initial cost Most expensive light to install and maintain High initial cost of fixtures Hot restart can take several minutes
Metal Halide
High intensity discharge arc tube in which light is produced by radiation from sodium vapor operating under pressure
Excellent color rendition Sparkling white light that imitates daylight conditions, used in sports stadiums, car dealer lots, etc. 100-watt bulb lasts 10K hrs Works well with CCTV Very long life (20K-28K hrs) Can cut through fog and allow greater visibility (used on street and parking lots) In some cases, it can be used with CCTV
March 2005
12
Final Report
A summary of properties of various lamps is presented in Table 6. The number of hours the lamp remains functional is considered as the life of the lamp. The efficacy is a measure of the "efficiency" of a lamp, measured in lumens per watt (i.e., knowing how much light is given out for a given amount power input), allows comparisons of energy efficiency to be made. The Color Rendering Index (CRI) is a relative measure of the shift in surface color of an object when lit by a particular lamp, compared with how the object would appear under a reference light source of similar color temperature. The higher the CRI of the light source, the "truer" it renders color. Table 6. Summary of Lamp Properties
Option High Pressure Sodium Metal Halide Mercury Vapor Fluorescent Life (hrs) 20,000-24,000 6,000-15,000 16,000-24,000 10,000-24,000 Efficacy (lpw) 50-110 72-76 30-50 40-140 Color Rendering Index 40 (approx. 22) 75-90 40-60 20-80 Color of light Orange White Blue-White White
A lamp's lumen output declines rapidly during its life; therefore, a designer should initially provide more lumens than is required so that as the lamp declines with age, a sufficient amount of light is still available. Figure 2 shows typical lamp lumen depreciation over time for three light sources Low Pressure Sodium (LPS), High Pressure Sodium (HPS) and Metal Halide Pulse Start Horizontal (MH).
% Output (Lumen)
Legend
24000
Time in Hours Figure 2. Typical Lamp Lumen Depreciation Advances in HPS lamp technology have led to the development of a new color corrected HPS lamp. Color corrected HPS lamps are made by using optical coatings; however, the coating often gets burnt out. Even with greatly improved Color Rendering Index (about 80),
March 2005
13
Final Report
the color corrected HPS lamp still delivers yellow light for sometime when the bulb is switched on, and is not as white as the Metal Halide. It has been further reported that the color coating becomes ineffective at about half-life of the lamp. In Europe, induction lamps are widely used and have a number of advantages. It has a long life 100,000 hours rated average life4. It provides a Color Rendering Index of 80+ CRI, which is almost twice as much as that of mercury vapor (45 CRI) and almost four times as much as that of HPS (21 CRI). Even though it has a higher initial cost, its long life reduces the operations and maintenance costs. Starting operation is instant with no flickering. The disadvantages include the unavailability of moderate to high wattage lamps. The lamp will not "burn out" but will just get so dim that it no longer supplies adequate light for a given application. Although it has a long life, the ballasts may fail sooner, requiring the replacement of both the lamp and the ballast.
2.4 POLES
There are four types of poles used for luminaire support; these are Fiberglass, Aluminum, Steel and Concrete poles. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed in Table 7. The District mostly uses steel poles and is phasing out Fiberglass. Table 7. Comparison of Poles
Option Fiberglass Pole Advantages Direct burial pole is easy to install, and requires no waiting for concrete to cure. Some fiberglass poles are available for mounting to an anchor base. Electrically non-conductive Corrosion resistant Fiberglass materials should be solid-core so that scratches and gashes in the pole will be less noticeable Lower cost option than many metal poles Lighter, less expensive to ship to sites Should have above ground access door, otherwise its a maintenance problem Good quality appearance. Fluting and other relief details are easy options. Factory-installed paint finish often more durable than fiberglass pole finish. The pre-treatment and base coating of the pole is critical to paint and pole durability. With good-quality multi-stage paint finish in factory, corrosion is minimal, especially when low-copper aluminum alloy is used Moderate cost: Tapered aluminum poles are less expensive than straight aluminum poles in sizes greater than 14 Aluminum has scrap value at the end of its life Disadvantages Needs to be painted every 15 years because the color fades with time Appears to be cheaper and less durable than metal poles Pole has texture that looks un-metallic if standard paint finish is applied. Smooth paint finishes help to get rid of turn marks Weed whackers beat up the base of fiberglass poles If not stored carefully, heat can warp the pole
Aluminum Pole
Electrically conductive More difficult to install than fiberglass because it requires anchor base
March 2005
14
Final Report
Concrete Pole
Durable, non-corroding Electrically non-conductive Easy, direct burial installation, that requires no waiting for concrete to cure Several color options for appearance Can function as a barrier against vehicular traffic for pedestrians, but will not breakaway if struck by vehicle
Disadvantages Electrically conductive Corrodes easily. Needs frequent painting More difficult to install because it requires anchor base Heavier to ship to jobsite than either aluminum or fiberglass poles Non-traditional appearance (doesnt look like metal) Must be re-coated with preserving finish every 15 years Hard to add accessories such as banners or parking signs. Requires stainless steel bands around the pole unless pole is predrilled for these attachments. Limited number of appearance options beyond color and aggregate Higher initial cost than fiberglass or aluminum poles
2.5 PHOTOSENSOR
The streetlight has a photosensor that turns off when exposed to light and vice versa. There are two types of photosensors- button type and twist-lock. The button type photosensors need to be avoided as they have a high failure rate. This must be installed in the luminaire and should be done in the factory as the field personnel complain that it is too difficult and time consuming to install it in the field. The Twist-lock photosensors are preferred and are mounted to bracket arms on the poles rather than the luminaire.
2.6 GLOBES
The Washington globes are made either of glass or plastic. The glass globes were originally being used, but were discontinued, as they are not safe. Therefore D.C. went from glass to plastic. The cost of a glass globe is approximately $300, an acrylic globe is $125 and a prismatic acrylic globe is $200. The comparisons between the globes are shown in Table 8.
March 2005
15
Final Report
Glass Globe
Very durable material that does not change color (yellow) over time
Very heavy Not safe, as it could tear the cars tires or harm someone when broken.
March 2005
16
Final Report
Type I A luminaire designed for center mounting ove r streets up to 2.0 mounting heights in width.
Type II A luminaire designed for center mounting over curb line of street width less than 1.5 mounting heights.
Type III A luminaire designed for center mounting ove r curb line of street width up to 2.0 mounting heights.
Type IV A luminaire designed for center mounting ove r curb line of street width greater than 2.0 mounting heights.
Source: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. ANSI/IES RP-8.1983; Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
March 2005
17
Final Report
One Sided
S Cable
Median Mounted
Source: Roadway Lighting Handbook, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983.
March 2005
18
Final Report
to increased pavement brightness, but it also contributes greatly to increased disability and discomfort glare. The light flux emission above the beam of maximum candlepower needs to be controlled to achieve balanced performance. The categories of control are presented in Table 9 with some facts, advantages and disadvantages of each option. Table 9. Comparison of Cutoff Levels
Option Full Cutoff Facts
A luminaire light distribution with zero candela (intensity) at an angle of 90 or above. The candela per 1000 lamp lumens is 100 (10%) at o 80 vertical angle No uplight allowed
Advantages
Perceived reduction in sky glow Excellent light control at property line Limits spill light Reduces perceived glare
Disadvantages
Reduces pole spacing, increases pole and luminaire quantity Least cost effective of all cutoff categories Concentrated down light component results in maximum reflected uplight Decreased uniformity due to higher light levels under pole Can allow uplight, a problem where uplight is not desired Light control at property line less than full cutoff Higher amount of reflected light off pavement can contribute to sky glow
Cutoff
900 25 CD/1000 LM, 2.5% Light
80 0 1 00C D/1 10% L 000 LM, ight
A luminaire light distribution where the candela per 1000 lumens is 25 (2.5%) at an angle of 90 or more. The candela per 1000 lamp lumens does not exceed 100 (10%) at a vertical o angle of 80 . 0% to 16% uplight
Small increase in high-angle light compared to full cutoff Good light control at property line Potential for increased pole spacing and lowering overall power consumption when compared to full cutoff
Semi-Cutoff
A luminaire light distribution where the candela per 1000 o lumens is 50 (5%) at 90 angle or above. The candela per 1000 lamp lumens is 200 (20%) at o 80 vertical angle 1% to 32% uplight
Potential for increased pole spacing and lowering overall power consumption when compared to full cutoff High angle light accents taller surfaces Less reflected light off pavement than cutoff luminaries Vertical illumination increases pedestrian security and safety
Greater potential for direct uplight component than cutoff Light trespass a concern near residential areas Increased high angle light compared to cutoff
Non-Cutoff
A luminaire light distribution there is no candela restriction at any angle. No restriction on uplight
Potential for increased pole spacing and lowering overall power consumption when compared to full cutoff Accents taller surfaces Highest vertical illumination increases pedestrian safety & security Potential for excellent uniformity Least amount of reflected light off pavement Open visual environment provides vertical surface visibility
Greater potential for direct uplight component than cutoff Least control of uplight Increased high angle light compared to cutoff
Source: HOLOPHANE
March 2005
19
Final Report
3.1 POLES
Figure 5 through Figure 7 show the various streetlight poles used in the District (referred to as Washington Family of Streetlight Poles in this document). Several streetlight poles are being phased out or have already been rendered obsolete. The different types of poles are described below. Older Types Figure 5 shows some obsolete poles. The 10th Street Mall poles have a few installations in L 'Enfant Plaza and are being phased out. The New York Avenue Rotary Type poles are no longer used and the RLA poles are being phased out.
Figure 5. Washington Family --Older Types Washington Upright Poles This group includes Nos. 716, 16, 18, 13N, 14, 17M, 19M, Twin-20 and State Department Twin-20. The Nos. 13N, 17 M, 19M and State Department Twin-20 poles are now obsolete.
March 2005
20
Final Report
The Washington Upright poles (e.g., Nos. 716, 14, 16, 18, and Twin-20) are used in the historic districts/streets. No. 16 is the most commonly used upright pole; No. 716 is considered to be an inexpensive version of No.16 ($5000 vs. $2500). In the Downtown area near Foggy Bottom, No. 18 poles are used. The Twin-20 poles are used in Downtown, in historic districts and several entry points into Washington, DC. The Nos. 16 and 18 poles use 24-inch bases and 15-inch bolt circles and can accommodate 70-400 Watt lamps. The No. 14 pole, on the other hand, uses a 17-inch base and 10.5-inch bolt circles and can accommodate 70-150 Watt lamps, since it is limited by the size of the casing. 716 poles are steel octaflute with a 9.5 inches bolt circle. AD11 poles, a variation of No. 716 poles, are used for traffic signals. In a pole, the shaft is always made of steel, whereas the base, arm and casing can be cast iron or aluminum. In the past, fiberglass poles were used, but are obsolete now. All the poles in DC are powder coated and most of the times have a breakaway base (except near signalized intersections).
716
13/14/16/18
19M
TWIN-20
Figure 6. Washington Family Upright Poles Pendant Post and 5A Alley Poles The Pendant Post poles are installed citywide and can accommodate 70-400 Watt lamps with either single or twin arm(s). The District typically uses Cobrahead type arms and fixtures (although there are limited installations of Teardrop fixtures, another type of Pendant Post implementation). Pendant Post poles have an octaflute type of cross-section. The most widely used Pendant Post poles are 28 feet 6 inches tall; 38 feet-6 inches tall poles are also used. There are a few high-mast (70 feet-100 feet tall) Pendant Post poles in the City that use 1000 Watt High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps.
March 2005 21
Final Report
3.2 LAMPS
The lamps generally used in the District are HPS, Metal Halide (MH), Mercury Vapor, Fluorescent and Incandescent. HPS is extensively used for sign and streetlighting. Because of its relatively low maintenance requirement, the District has been using HPS universally, except for the Monumental Core. MH lamps currently have very limited use (only in the Monumental Core area). Twenty (20) percent of the existing lights use incandescent lamps. Mercury Vapor is used for sign lighting and Florescent is used for underpasses. Mercury Vapor and Incandescent lights are being phased out and replaced by HPS.
3.3 WATTAGE
The District is currently considering a policy to design streetlights based on a lower wattage, so as to keep an extra cushion for higher level of illumination in future. If needed in future, the lower wattage lamps can be replaced by higher wattages. For example, No. 16 poles should be designed for a maximum of 250 Watt (while allowed is up to 400 Watt) and No. 14 poles should be designed for a maximum of 100 Watt (while allowed is up to 150 Watt). This will provide the flexibility of using higher wattages in future. DDOT also discourages using 400 Watt conversion kits in residential areas.
March 2005
22
Final Report
March 2005
23
Final Report
Land Use Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Alleys
Recommendations based on Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft, AASHTO, 2004.
March 2005
24
Final Report
For illuminated sidewalk areas, the following average maintained illumination levels should be designed along all DDOT roadway classifications for either R2 or R3 class with the criteria based on the level of commercial development. Table 11. Recommended Average Maintained Illuminance for Sidewalks8
DC Sidewalk Locations Residential Areas Intermediate Areas Commercial Areas Recommended Average Maintained Illuminance (foot-candle) R1 R2 & R3 R4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.2
For the DDOT roadway classifications shown below, the following uniformity ratios (average-to-minimum) should be used as a guideline in the design of the lighting system. Table 12. Recommended Average-to-Minimum Uniformity Ratios
DC Street Classification Interstate Other freeways and Expressway Principal Arterials Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Alleys Average-to-Minimum Uniformity Ratio 3:1 or 4:1 3:1 3:1 4:1 4:1 6:1 6:1
4.2.2
AASHTO is currently updating the design guide, which states that the veiling luminance ratio requirement should be used as a design guideline along with uniformity ratios in the design of the lighting system. The veiling luminance ratio will need to be satisfied in order to insure that the disability glare is minimized to reduce the blinding effect from light shining directly into the eyes of drivers and pedestrians. The veiling luminance ratios shown in Table 13 are from the current Ballot Draft version of AASHTO guide. DDOT will review any future modification in AASHTO standards for inclusion in this policy.
Recommendations based on Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft, AASHTO, 2004.
March 2005
25
Final Report
4.2.3
For residential areas, mixed-use and commercial areas, all luminaires must have a Full cutoff luminaire light distribution with zero candelas (intensity) at an angle of 90 degrees or above, or a Cutoff luminaire light distribution where the candela per 1,000 lumens does not exceed 25 (2.5%) at an angle of 90 degrees or above. By establishing the standards for lighting fixtures in residential, intermediate, and commercial areas, rear obtrusive light can be minimized. 4.2.4 Lateral Light Distribution Patterns
The following lateral light distributions should be used for the DDOT roadway classifications: Table 14. Recommended Light Distribution Patterns11
DC Street Classification Interstate Roadway Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Alleys Lighting Distribution Pattern Type III or Type IV Type III or Type IV Type III or Type IV Type III Type III Type II or Type III Type II
If lighting poles are located in the medians of roadways or within islands that have traffic flows on both sides of island, a Type V lateral lighting distribution pattern may be used. 4.2.5 Minimum Light Pole Spacing
For all DDOT roadway classifications, a pole height and lighting fixture must be chosen to meet the average maintained illumination levels and uniformity ratios identified earlier, and to have pole spacings at 60 feet or greater. In cases where lighting designs require pole
9
Recommendations based on: Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft, AASHTO, 2004. Recommendations based on: City and County of Denver Rules and Regulations for Outdoor Lighting. 11 Recommendations based on: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting.
10
March 2005
26
Final Report
spacings to be less than 60 feet to reach the desired illumination levels and uniformity ratios, a different pole and/or lighting fixture must be considered first to meet or exceed a 60- foot minimum spacing requirement. For pole spacing less than 60 feet, exceptions must be approved by DDOT.
March 2005
27
Final Report
A decorative arm with a Teardrop fixture has been selected by DDOT. The fixture (not the arm) is shown in Figure 8.
March 2005
28
Final Report
March 2005
29
Final Report
2. Refractive, prismatic globes have been accepted for replacing the currently used plain globes. Refractive globes are a major achievement in the field of optical technologies and provide greater level of illumination with minimal light loss by redirecting lights in the desired direction. The prismatic optical system directs the light into the desired pattern, allows maximum spacing with excellent uniformity, and minimizes upward wasted light. The refractive globe is expected to reduce direct glare by softening and spreading the light being distributed from the light source. 3. White lights may replace yellow lights produced by HPS lamps (except for alleys) in the future, when their life-cycle costs become comparable to yellow light sources.
March 2005
30
Final Report
5.3.1
Context
Another important factor for streetlight hardware selection is the context of the surrounding. The height of the pole, lamp wattage, shielding method are based on the surrounding. The context of the surrounding includes the characteristics of a street, such as: 1. Roadway Width 2. Sidewalk Width 3. Height of the building 4. Setback of the building 5.3.2 Historic significance
Washington's significance is attributed to the national landmarks and monuments as well as the historic neighborhoods and local landmarks that make the city unique. The city had ninety-six historic places that bring the 200 years of history of the city to life. The preservation of the historic attributes of these areas is an important goal of the City. Streetlighting hardware is a significant element of these attributes. The streets in the City can be broadly classified into two groups historic and non-historic. As the name implies, historic streets need to preserve the tradition of the City in terms of streetlight hardware appearance. Non-historic streets do not have that requirement; however, certain standards are set up for these to promote uniformity and consistency. The historic streets, shown in Figure 9, are defined to include: 1. Road network within the designated historic areas 2. Other streets designated as historic (i.e., in non-historic areas)
March 2005
31
Final Report
North
Legend
Non-Historic Streets Historic Streets Historic Areas
March 2005
32
Final Report
Furthermore, certain streets are designated as the monumental core streets and are shown in Figure 10.
Another factor for the streetlight hardware selection is the significance of the street. A set of streets has been designated as Special Streets (alternatively, Capital Avenues), as shown in Figure 11 and Table 16. The list includes roads playing significant role in carrying motorists and tourists in and out of the City as well as several streets belonging to the historic L 'Enfant Plan. The following categories of streets are included in this group12: 1. National Highway System (NHS) streets. These streets are federally designated streets of importance (with respect to nation's economy, defense, and mobility) that receive federal aid. Nationally, the Federal Government has designated approximately 160,000 miles (256,000 kilometers) of NHS streets. 2. Gateway streets. The District has designated key entry points to the City as Gateways. These gateways lead motorists and tourists into the heart of the City through major streets. These routes have been included in the Special Street category.
12
Designated by the Streetlight Policy Advisory Committee in the meeting on May 19, 2004 and subsequently modified through reviewers' feedbacks during the study.
March 2005
33
Final Report
3. Other important streets. Part of historic L' Enfant Plan is included in the Special Street designation. Several other key streets that have been identified in District community development plans were also included in the list. The Special Streets have been designated to have Washington signature streetlight treatment.
Recom m ended Pole Type for Over Head Pow erlines Decorative Tear Drop Decorative Tear Drop (Alt. Cobra Head) Decorative Tear Drop (Alt. Cobra Head)
Recom m ended Pole Type for Underground Pow erlines Tw in 20 Decorative Tear Drop (Alt. Cobra Head), Upright Poles (#14, 16, 18) Upright Poles, Tw in 20
Final Report
Starta 14 Street Bridge, SW H Street, NW H Street, NE H Street, NE DC Line, NW Randle Circle, SE T Street, NE Chain Bridge, NW H Street, NW DC Line, NW 1st Street, NE/SE 16th Street, NW P Street, NW Maine Avenue, SW Virginia Avenue, DC Line, SE 14th Street Bridge, SW I-395, SW Ohio Dr., NW (Approx.) Wisconsin Avenue, NW Blair Road, NE McArthur Boulevard, NW Canal Road, NW DC Line, NW DC Line, NW DC Line, NW 16th Street, NW Foxhall Road, NW Park Road, NW 14th Street, NW D Street, NE/NW M Street, NW Connecticut Avenue, NW DC Line, SE/SW South Capitol Street, SE South Capitol, SE Massachusetts Avenue, NW M Street, NW DC Line, NW
th
Enda DC Line, NW DC Line, NW DC Line, SE DC Line, NE Hamilton Street, NE DC Line, SE Rhode Island Avenue, NE M Street, NW DC Line, NW Loughboro Road, NW DC Line, NE/SE Southern Avenue Benning Road, NE DC Line, NW 15th Street, NE DC Line, NE New York Avenue, NE Pennsylvania Avenue, SE 26th Street, NW (Approx.) Florida Avenue, NE DC Line, NE Foxhall Road, NW Florida Avenue, NE Foxhall Road, NW DC Line, SE 16th Street, NW North Capitol Street Oregon Avenue, NW DC Line, NE DC Line, NE Blair Road, NE/NW DC Line, SE DC Line, NE Independence Avenue, SE/SW Eastern Avenue, NE DC Line, SE Oregon Avenue, NW K Street, NW South of K Street, NW (Up to Potomac River)
th
No limits are assigned to the special streets and generally, the designations end at the physical ends of the roadways or at DC line. Therefore, the "start" and "end" do not represent any limits, but the actual physical ends of the roadways. There are other short segment(s) of the roadway beyond the start and end points. However, these segments have different contexts and therefore, are not included as Special Streets. The streetlight designs for these segments will be based upon their contexts.
March 2005
35
Final Report
5.3.4
Another factor in the selection of streetlight hardware in the District is whether the PEPCO power line is underground or overhead. For areas with underground power line, streetlight power feeds may also be routed through underground conduits and, as a result, standard poles (with arms) can be used as necessary. In areas with overhead PEPCO power lines, there is an abundance of wooden utility poles. In order to minimize the cost, the utility poles are used for mounting streetlight fixtures, with direct overhead power feeds from PEPCO lines. Thus, no separate streetlight poles are necessary in these areas and, therefore, only arm and luminaire are specified.
March 2005
36
Final Report
K St.
M as s ach us e t ts
rd 3rd St.
Ave
2nd St.
D St.
e Av
C St.
Constitution Ave
na
Figure 12. Downtown Streetscape Area Boundaries There are several BIDs in the District, and as of the publication date of this document, the following BIDs are considered exempt from this guideline - Georgetown, Downtown, Golden Triangle and North of Massachusetts Avenue (NOMA). The No. 18 poles are generally used in the BIDs. The Georgetown and Downtown BIDs specify the wattage used and the Golden Triangle BID specifies the color of the pole to be black (Federal Chip 27038). The NOMA BID is being formed and, therefore, its standards are yet to be determined. DDOT will make determination on the exempt status on any future new BIDs. The Monumental Core area, as specified in the Inter-Mall Roads Streetscape Plan, uses black upright poles (No. 16 or Twin 20) with 400-Watt Metal Halide conversion kits. In the District, Metal Halide lights are currently being used only in Monumental Core.
March 2005
37
Final Report
1. Non-Historic Areas Table 17 shows the streetlight hardware standards for the non-historic areas with underground power lines. In residential areas, the citizens will be given the choice to select either a Decorative Teardrop (alternatively Cobraheads if costs prohibit) or Upright poles in place of the existing Cobrahead poles. The Pendant Posts are recommended for non-historic streets, as they are economical. The standards for the non-historic areas with overhead power lines are shown in Table 18. Bridges and tunnels/underpasses are not applicable to this scenario. The lighting arm is the only option for overhead power lines, as it is attached to the utility wooden poles. A Decorative Teardrop arm is preferred; however, Cobraheads can be used if cost prohibits. 2. Historic Areas Table 19 presents the standards for historic areas and streets with underground power lines. The requirements do not apply to Tunnels/Underpasses and alleys. The standards for historic areas and streets with overhead power lines are shown in Table 20. Bridges and tunnels/underpasses are not applicable to historic areas and streets with overhead power lines. 3. Special Streets Table 21 and Table 22 present standards for special streets with underground and overhead power lines, respectively. A decorative teardrop arm is used for special streets with overhead power lines. The requirements do not apply to alleys and Tunnels/Underpasses for special streets with underground power lines. Bridges, alley and tunnels/underpasses are not applicable to special streets with overhead power lines.
March 2005
38
Final Report
Table 17. Standards for Non-Historic Streets with Underground Power Lines
Roadway/Area Type Intermediate (Mixed Use) Residential
b
Item Bridges
c,e
Commercial
Alley
Freeway
Tunnels/ Underpasses
Comments
Decorative Teardrop (Alt. Cobraa head ), Uprightf Decorative Teardrop (Alt. a Cobra-head ), f Upright Decorative Teardrop, f Upright Full Cutoff or Cutoff Full Cutoff or Cutoff Full Cutoff or Cutoff Full Cutoff or Cutoff Full Cutoff or Cutoff N/A Decorative Teardrop (Alt. Cobraa head ), Uprightf
Citizens are to choose from available choices (text in bold is preferred choice)
Cutoff Criteria
Gray
N/A
Staggered
Staggered
N/A
Staggered chosen for uniformity of light Opposite for bridge for aesthetics and symmetry N/A N/A N/A N/A
Min Spacing between d Poles 60 ft min (on one side) all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology
Height of Pole
Base of Pole
Material of Pole
a b c d
e f
Although Teardrop is preferred, Cobrahead is an alternative in cost-prohibitive situation. Replace Upright in kind and Cobrahead changes to Teardrop or Upright. Replace Upright in kind and Cobrahead changes to Teardrop. The pole can be any special decorative pole designed particularly for a bridge, but it cannot be Cobrahead. For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified. Minimum spacing between poles (60 ft) is not a recommendation, but an absolute minimum. Bridges may deviate from these guidelines and may be designed with special decorative streetlight hardware to signify their importance, especially in the entry to the City. #14, #16, #18 Poles depending on the height of surroundings.
March 2005
39
Final Report
Table 18. Standards for Non-Historic Streets with Overhead Power Lines
Roadway/Area Type Intermediate (Mixed Use) Residential Decorative Teardrop (Alt. a Cobrahead ) N/A N/A N/A N/A Staggered Staggered Gray Gray Full Cutoff or Cutoff Full Cutoff, Cutoff N/A N/A N/A Currently used Staggered chosen for uniformity of light N/A N/A Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology N/A N/A Cobrahead (5A) Cobrahead N/A Full Cutoff or Cutoff Gray Staggered Decorative Teardrop (Alt. a Cobrahead ) Full Cutoff or Cutoff Gray Staggered Bridges Alley Freeway Tunnels/ Underpasses Comments Only lighting arm is to be used
Item
Commercial
Cutoff Criteria
Color of Arm
Gray
Preferred Orientation
Staggered
Min Spacing between b Poles N/A N/A N/A N/A Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology Depends on Pole Type 60 ft min (on one side) - all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type
Height of Pole
Base of Pole
Material of Pole
a b
Although Teardrop is preferred, Cobrahead is an alternative in cost-prohibitive situation. For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified. Minimum spacing between poles (60 ft) is not a recommendation but an absolute minimum.
March 2005
40
Final Report
Table 19. Standards for Historic Streets with Underground Power Lines
Bridges
c
Criteria
Roadway/Area Type Intermediate Commercial Residential (Mixed Use) Alley Freeway Tunnels/ Underpasses Comments
#14, #16, b #18, Twin 20 (Note: Replace Historic Upright in kind) Full Cutoff or Cutoff Black Black Full Cutoff or Cutoff N/A N/A
Wall packs for vehicular Tunnels #14, #16, #18 for pedestrian tunnels
Upright poles are currently used for historic areas. They are truly historical to DC and aesthetically more pleasing
Color of Pole
Black
Existing color
Staggered
N/A
Staggered chosen because of uniformity of light Opposite for bridge for aesthetics and symmetry N/A N/A N/A N/A
60 ft min (on one side) all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology
Min Spacing between a Poles Height of Pole Base of Pole Material of Pole
For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified. Minimum spacing between the poles (60 ft) is not a recommendation but only an absolute minimum. b Twin 20 not necessarily desirable unless it is a Special Case. c Bridges may deviate from these guidelines and may be designed with special decorative streetlight hardware to signify their importance, especially in the entry to the City. Notes: 1. For Signalized Intersections, if mast arm is not required, for upright poles (#14, #16 & #18), #18 combination pole should be used; and for Twin 20, the same should be used as combination pole. 2. For Signalized Intersections, if mast arm is required, Pendant pole should be used as combination pole; decorative arm with Teardrop fixture can be used. 3. For Unsignalized Intersections, the same pole should be used at the intersections. If the selected pole doesnt illuminate the intersection uniformly, the next taller pole that illuminates the intersection uniformly should be selected.
March 2005
41
Final Report
Table 20. Standards for Historic Streets with Overhead Power Lines
Bridges Alley Freeway Tunnels/ Underpasses Comments
Criteria
Lighting Hardware Type N/A Cobrahead (5A) Cobrahead N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Staggered Staggered
Cutoff Criteria
Roadway/Area Type Intermediate Commercial Residential (Mixed Use) Decorative Decorative Decorative Teardrop Teardrop Teardrop (Alt. (Alt. (Alt. a Cobrahead ) a a Cobrahead ) Cobrahead ) Full Cutoff or Full Cutoff or Full Cutoff or Cutoff Cutoff Cutoff Black Black Black Full Cutoff or Cutoff Black Full Cutoff or Cutoff Black
Preferred Orientation
Staggered
N/A
Height of Pole
N/A
N/A
60 ft min (on one side) all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology
60 ft min (on one side) all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology
N/A
a b
Although Teardrop is preferred, Cobrahead is an alternative in cost-prohibitive situation. For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified. Minimum spacing between the poles (60 ft) is not a recommendation but only an absolute minimum.
March 2005
42
Final Report
Table 21. Standards for Special Streets with Underground Power Lines
Bridges
b
Criteria
Roadway/Area Type Intermediate Commercial Residential (Mixed Use) Alley Freeway Tunnels/ Underpasses Twin 20 Twin 20 Twin 20 N/A Decorative Teardrop N/A Full Cutoff or Cutoff N/A N/A N/A Black Staggered
Comments
Lighting Hardware Type Full Cutoff or Cutoff N/A N/A N/A Black Opposite Opposite Opposite Black Depends on Bridge Design Full Cutoff or Cutoff Full Cutoff or Cutoff
Twin 20
Cutoff Criteria
Color of Pole
Black
Preferred Orientation 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology N/A N/A N/A N/A
Opposite
Height of Pole
Base of Pole
Material of Pole
60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology
For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified. Minimum spacing between the poles (60 ft) is not a recommendation but only an absolute minimum. b Bridges may deviate from these guidelines and may be designed with special decorative streetlight hardware to signify their importance, especially in the entry to the City. Note: 1. For Signalized Intersections, if mast arm is not required, Twin 20 should be used as combination pole. 2. For Signalized Intersections, if mast arm is required, Pendant pole should be used as combination pole; decorative arm with Teardrop fixture can be used. 3. For Unsignalized Intersections, the same pole should be used at the intersections. If the selected pole doesnt illuminate the intersection uniformly, the next taller pole that illuminates the intersection uniformly should be selected.
March 2005
43
Final Report
Table 22. Standards for Special Streets with Overhead Power Lines
Bridges N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Staggered N/A N/A Black N/A Opposite may be aesthetically more pleasing N/A Full Cutoff or Cutoff N/A Cobrahea d (5A) Cobrahead N/A Alley Freeway Tunnels/ Underpasses Comments Only lighting arm is to be used
Criteria
Lighting Hardware Type Full Cutoff or Cutoff Black Opposite Opposite Black Full Cutoff or Cutoff
Roadway/Area Type Intermediate Commercial Residential (Mixed Use) Decorative Decorative Decorative Teardrop Teardrop Teardrop
Cutoff Criteria
Color of Arm
Black
Preferred Orientation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Opposite
Min Spacing between a Poles Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type N/A
Height of Pole
Base of Pole
Material of Pole
60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Depends on the prevailing technology
For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified. Minimum spacing between the poles (60 ft) is not a recommendation but only an absolute minimum.
March 2005
44
Final Report
The minimum spacing between poles (i.e., 60 ft) is not a recommendation, but only an absolute minimum. The designer should ensure that the spacing fulfills the following objectives, yet meeting the AASHTO standards: Minimum number of poles Lowest acceptable wattage Maximum possible spacing The height of the pole should be determined based on the context of the surroundings, such as the height of building, roadway width, sidewalk width, etc. The order of precedence also influences the hardware selection and is as follows: 1. Exempt locations, such as Monumental Core/BIDS/Downtown Streetscape 2. Special streets 3. Historic streets 4. Non-Historic streets The Washington Upright poles Nos. 14, 16, 18 and Twin-20 that are recommended in the standards are shown below.
14/16/18
TWIN-20
Figure 13. Types of Upright Poles for Use in DC (#14, #16, #18 and Twin-20) The Pendant poles recommended for the District are Cobrahead, 5A Alley Post and Decorative Teardrop (shown in Figure 12). The Cobrahead and 5A Alley Poles are installed citywide.
March 2005
45
Final Report
COBRAHEAD
5A ALLEY POST
TEARDROP
Figure 14. Types of Pendant Poles for Use in DC (Cobrahead, 5A Alley Post and Teardrop)
March 2005
46
Final Report
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Alleys
2. The design should use maximum spacing of streetlight poles. A minimum spacing between poles (i.e., 60 ft) has been specified; however, it is not a recommendation,
13
Recommendations based on Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft, AASHTO, 2004.
March 2005
47
Final Report
but only an absolute minimum. The designer should ensure that the spacing fulfills the following objectives, yet meeting the AASHTO standards: Minimum number of poles Lowest acceptable wattage Maximum possible spacing 3. The design should be based on lower wattage lamps, so as to keep an extra cushion for higher level of illumination in future, if necessary, which can be easily done by replacing the lower wattage lamps with higher wattages. For example, No. 16 poles should be designed for a maximum 250 Watt, while up to 400 Watt is allowed; No. 14 poles should be designed for a maximum of 100 Watt, while up to 150 Watt is allowed. 4. The design should avoid using 400 Watt conversion kits in residential areas. 5. The height of the pole should be determined based on the context of the surroundings such as the height of building, roadway width, sidewalk width, etc. 6. The design must consider reduction of glare into drivers' and pedestrians' eyes, and enhancement of visibility. Appropriate refractive globes can effectively reduce direct glare by softening and spreading the light distribution. Shields can also be used to aim the lights so that they are not directly visible from the roads, alleys, pathways, and windows, as needed.
March 2005
48
Final Report
Existing
Cobra head 75 100 ft Gray 400 W H PS Staggered
Proposed
No. 16 To be deter mined Blac k 250 W MH Staggered Pole T yp e: l Spacing: Color: Lamp: l l
Proposed
No. 16 j To be deter mined Gray 250 W MH l l Staggered
Pole Orientation:
Historic District
Existing
Cobra head 100 ft Gray 250 W H PS Staggered
Proposed
Twin 20 To be deter mined Blac k 250 W MH Opposite
North
Figure 15. Illustration of North Capitol Street and Michigan Avenue/Columbia Road Another illustration of streetlight design for Cathedral Avenue and Connecticut Avenue (Old Woodley Park Area) is shown in Figure 16. The entire Connecticut Avenue segment shown belongs to the Special Street category. On the other hand, Cathedral Avenue is a collector road that changes from Non-historic to Historic. At the intersection, the roadway right-ofway (ROW) controls the color and other properties of the streetlighting hardware. The Special Streets supersede Historic Streets/Districts and Historic Streets supersede NonHistoric Streets. When a Special Street passes through any Historic District, it will continue to have the color and other properties of Special Street. At the intersection of a Historic Street with a Non-Historic Street, the ROW will control the color and other properties as shown at the bottom of the figure.
March 2005
49
Final Report
Existing
No. 16, Cobra head 75 100 ft Gray 250 W H PS Staggered
Propose d
No. 16 j To be deter mined Gray 250 W MH Staggered
Existing
Cobra head 110 ft Gray 400 W H PS Staggered
Propose d
Twin 20 To be deter mined Blac k 250 W MH Opposite
Existing
Cobra head 100 ft Gray 250 W H PS Staggered
Propose d
No. 16 To be deter mined Blac k 250 W MH Staggered
Non-Historic Area
ROW
ROW
Non-Historic Area
ROW
ROW
Historic District
ROW
ROW
Historic District
Note: At the intersection, the right-of-way (ROW) controls the color and other properties. Special Streets supersede Historic Streets and Historic Streets supersede Non-Historic Streets.
Figure 16. Illustration of Cathedral Avenue and Connecticut Avenue (Old Woodley Park)
March 2005
50
Final Report
6. NEXT STEPS
DDOT should follow certain next steps, as listed below for successful implementation of this strategic plan: 1. DDOT should periodically review these guidelines and make any necessary modifications within the general framework. 2. Continual monitoring is required to review lamp technologies and related costs in the future. Currently, white light sources are not economically feasible compared to long life HPS lamps. Special attention needs to be paid to white light sources (such as metal halide or some other future technologies) to determine when its life-cycle costs become comparable to inexpensive HPS light sources. Implementation of white light sources may be deemed viable at that time. 3. The overall technology should be assessed from time to time to take advantage of new developments offering economy and safety. For example, poles of various materials are becoming available and some may offer a safer environment (such as non-conductive pole base). 4. DDOT needs to evaluate its funding situation and priorities to determine the usage of Teardrop fixtures over Cobraheads. Although desired, a complete substitution of Cobrahead by Teardrop fixtures is likely to be cost-prohibitive. 5. New York Citys Department of Design and Construction, in association with the Citys Department of Transportation, has launched an international design competition for a new streetlight pole for the City of New York. Its main objective is to select a new streetlight hardware that will become a standard for the City. Therefore, DDOT should monitor the results from the competition and learn from it.
March 2005
51
March 2005
52
A.1. INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides the background information and data collected during the conduct of the study. It includes the research summary as well as the meeting minutes of the advisory committee. This appendix will help the reader understand the evolution of the recommended policies. The information contained in this appendix is as follows: Section A.2: Market reviews Section A.3: Other agency practices Section A.4: Streetlight Policy Advisory Committee.
March 2005
53
March 2005
54
A more detailed interview minutes are provided below. HADCO DCI met with Donald Fentress (Vice President) and Jim Lilley (Sales Representative) from HADCO. HADCO supplies globes, fixtures, and poles. The Fine Arts Commission picked Washington Globes as Standard 25 years ago. Cobraheads and Washington Globes are dominant in D.C. The Washington Globe is one of the most pleasing lighting fixtures architecturally. It was originally made in glass, but glass globes were discontinued, as they are not safe. The glass was 1inch thick and when it falls, it breaks and could tear car tires, and the sharp edges of the glass could hurt someone. Therefore D.C. went from glass to plastic. All the glass Globes were thrown in a dumpster 15 years ago. Holophane, Spring City and HADCO manufacture Washington Globes. The present Washington Globe provides 15% light on ground with a 150-Watt lamp. HADCO took the Washington Globe and architecturally copied and put in the prisms to use the light effectively. The results were 29.1% of light was on ground with a 150-Watt lamp. Therefore, the refractive globes are best for dark skies. The demonstration of HADCO refractive globes is in front of the FBI building (Penn Ave & 9th St). There are different types of prismatic globes, i.e., the way the prisms are molded in the globe, for different types of lighting patterns. It was mentioned that the glare in the prismatic globes generally corresponds to the wattage of the lamp rather than the globe itself. Types I, II, III, IV, V are the optical pattern light puts out with reflectors and prisms. Types III and V were discussed in detail. Type III produces better light, but also a little glare. Thus, the strong illumination can distract the driver. This is used in Baltimores Inner Harbor and New Jerseys Atlantic City. But by using reflectors, 51.3% light is put on the street. If you put reflectors over the bulb it will loose 10% of light. Generally, taller poles spread the light around but the light coming down on the street decreases. Type V Globes have been used in DC. Reflectors can be in louver form. It was claimed that the use of a louver is not that efficient and would produce a max/min ratio of 13, while a refractive globe could produce 6.5. The globes out on the streets were designed/tested for 250 Watt. If a higher wattage is used, it could melt the globe. There are many in D.C. where globes are melting as they are using 400 Watt when the globes are designed for 250 Watt. HADCO uses Acrylic materials. Plastic Globes made of Polycarbonate are strong and will never break. But after 5 years they will yellow because of UV rays and the light from the bulb. In addition they will become brittle with age, and as a result, when a rock is thrown at it, it will break. Generally, heat accelerates the deterioration process. A Poly-ethylene pole will never break, never needs to be painted, has a long life finish, maintains durability even in the harshest environments, withstands high impacts, is UV resistant, provides safety against shock hazard and is corrosion resistant. There is one plastic base installed in D.C. HADCO uses the lights manufactured by Philips. It was recommended that a Type V globe non-cutoff be used as a good trade off. It was mentioned that DDOT doesnt use reflectors all the time, but uses them only when required. HOLOPHANE generally uses Type III. Twin-20 with a mounting light unit at a lower height is being replaced with Teardrops on I-395. A
March 2005
55
copy of the article, The Dallas, Oregon & QL Induction Lighting on Philips Website, was given to DCI. (From the article, QL is much whiter than HPS, offers undistorted high color rendering, and provides softer lighting effects with less glare compared to MH.) Frederick (MD), Oregon and Stanford (CT) have used QL Induction Light. HADCOs Teardrop TR 4 Series is light in weight; it is made of acrylic and not glass. It does not use a button type but instead uses a twist lock. Black is the best color to be used for fading. A woman in NY was electrocuted after stepping on an electrified metal plate while walking her dog. It was mentioned that care should be taken regarding the wires dangling from light poles and service boxes exposed to the elements. HADCO demonstrated a plastic base, free from electrification problems. 20 feet poles with architectural fixtures are too difficult as the pole is too high to install. HADCO makes poles up to 20 feet, with bases and casing. A height of 12-16 feet is optimal for maximum output of light; thus, Twin-20 are a bit of a stretch. Sidewalks should be considered in the lighting design to enable motorists to see pedestrian movements. HADCO designed globes with 150-Watt light (no reflector), which can be equivalent to 250-Watt light with standard globes. HADCO provided DCI with a CD showing the installation of a plastic globe. A copy of the history of NY streetlights and literature about white and yellow light of an ophthalmologist were also given. A tour around Baltimore was offered to DCI to give a better visual understanding. Over 15 years dirt may settle in the globes and the light output will be generally reduced. This is a maintenance issue for both glass and plastic globes. Baltimore City has been using refractive globes for the past 8 years and has standardized the practice. HADCO offered DCI a refractive globe casing with different types of lamp attachments (HPS, color corrected HPS and Induction lamp). It was found that the color corrected HPS was not as white as the Induction Lamp, even though it was whiter than HPS itself. Traffic System And Technology DCI met with Sam Dominick. Traffic System and Technology has been providing Traffic and Lighting products since 1984. They operate as both a manufacturers representative and distributor of various products. They represent many manufacturers, a few of them are, Union Metal Corporation, King Luminaire, Electronic Integrated System (EIS), Precision Solar Control, etc. They offer a prefabricated foundation (SAFE) that is quick in installation and can be hydraulically pressed into the ground. It costs as much as concrete foundation. LumiTrack offers sign lighting maintenance systems that are installed on the SE/SW freeway and cannot be installed on cantilever beams. Union Metal was established in the 1900s and offers the Nostalgia series. King Luminaire manufactures Spun Concrete, Ferronite Cast Iron, Cast Iron Base/Steel Shaft and Aluminum poles. They also offer luminaries, arms and bollards. The concrete poles need no maintenance and are installed at Washington Center and the US Soldier home. Traffic System and Technology offers octaflute poles (28, 38 and 80 feet) and LED lights.
March 2005
56
For sign lighting, SHA uses Mercury Vapor, Virginia uses HPS, and DC uses HPS, MH and Mercury Vapor. Induction lamp is an emerging technology that is widely being used in Europe. It has a long life (100,000 hrs), however, the ballast doesnt last long and the failure rate is very high. The Teardrop luminaires are made by Union Metal and King Luminaire. M.C. Dean (a contractor used by DDOT) uses King Luminaire products. King Luminaire still makes glass globes. The standard globes produce 78% efficiency. Polycarbonate yellows in 3 years while acrylic is good for 12 years. A CD with King Luminaire products was given to DCI. Holophane DCI met with Benjamin M. Prichard (Newark), John A. Vlah (Annapolis) and Ken Roth (Pennsylvania). The prismatic Washington Globe casing was shown in the meeting and it was manufactured without sacrificing its historical identity. Some of these installations were in Georgetown and on 9th Street, but were removed later. They stated that this installation saves energy, will take any kind of abuse, and is easy to maintain. The casing is the same for Nos.16, 18 and Twin-20. The prismatic structure is molded in the Globe. The prismatic structure is the same for glass and acrylic. UL testing is performed for 40o ambient temperature. This type of globe saves energy, has greater illumination, has a cost reduction, maintenance reduction and also provides visual comfort. A clear and clean visual range is obtained from such globes. The prismatic structure has no sharp edges because sharp edges cause glare and therefore the edges are rounded instead. A glass globe with a perforated shield was shown. Generally uplight shield reduces uplight roughly by 2%. Uplight Shield has advantages and disadvantages. The globes are made of acrylic plastic (V 8 25 HID) which is better under any weather conditions. It is protected from UV rays not only from the sun but also from the source. Heat sources are generally from core and coil. Holophane suggested using acrylic for high crime rate areas and glass otherwise, as nothing is bullet proof. The glass globe was suggested for the commercial areas and acrylic for residential areas. The color corrected HPS was not as efficient as the HPS, as the optical coating gets burnt out. It was mentioned that MH is becoming more popular in other countries. Holophane prefers glass globes under normal conditions as they last forever and plastic degrades with time. Generally, degradation depends on location and exposure to sun. Holophane suggested glass globes for Downtown/Monumental Core as there would be no discoloration and the light would be whiter. The cost of glass (expensive) and acrylic (less expensive) are pretty close. Holophane has been testing acrylic for 6 years. The index is between 1 and 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best. It was mentioned that the heat is generated from the lamp and the ballast. IES defines an index called the Yellowing Index (ranges from 1-10, 1 being good, 10 being bad). Polycarbonate has an Index of 5 (IES Handbook), which is a tougher material when
March 2005
57
compared to acrylic. But acrylic has better optical properties and holds up better to heat. When the pole bends along with the wind, the lens comes off, but acrylics wont do that with fixtures. Generally, the fixture life reduces half for each 10o increase in temperature above the ambient temperature. Photocells can be placed in the casting by cutting a small opening in the neck of the casting. But DDOT requires the photocell at 45o minimum. If the photocell is perpendicular it will shoot out straight. Holophane suggested that a prism could be put on photocell so that it shoots down on the ground. Vibration testing is important, as the globe may tend to fall under high winds. Holophane 's globe passes the vibration test. The casting that was brought for demonstration was tested for 150 Watt HPS that fits No. 16 and Pendant pole. (i.e. 3 inch x 3 inch tenants). It did not have a photocell but would generally use a button type photocell. The Acrylic Globes are tested for up to 400 Watt HPS for 45oC ambient temperature. The globe is not a concern as it is tested for 400 Watt but the casing may need to be bigger for 400 Watt HPS. 9th Street has a Holophane Washington Globe demonstration. The globe size is not flexible (diameter) but the neck of the globe can be changed to fit in the existing casting. Plastic is easy to form or mold, but glass is difficult. An existing model/pole needs to be tested for whether the casting can be fixed to the tenant of the existing poles in D.C. or globe to the existing casting in D.C. Holophane suggested that a collar can be used to fit the globe on the existing casting. The Holophane's Glass and Acrylic Globes are Type III optical distribution. Type V has a circular distribution (application - Islands and Parks), Type IV has a wider oval distribution and Type III has a narrower oval distribution. Type V can be used for residential areas with household shields at 90o, 40o, etc. The efficiency is about the same for Types III, IV and V The globes installed on the street have 50% of the light going up but with Holophanes globe only 25% of the light is going up. Holophanes Teardrop poles are installed on 16th and Kennedy Streets. They are very efficient and save energy. This type of pole combines efficiency and aesthetics. The manufacturers are performing some tests to make them better, i.e., more decorative, functions like Pendant Posts, etc. Holophane also came up with the prismatic design of the Teardrop globe that was used in the1996 Olympics in Salt Lake City and in Silver Spring. If you replace Cobraheads with Teardrop they perform very well but it depends on the height and road width. For narrow streets (less than 30ft), Cobraheads are better and for wider streets (85-90 feet), Teardrops are better. The Teardrop fixtures come in cutoff. If you have a lower uniformity ratio, Teardrops make it brighter. The manufacturers showed 2 sizes of Teardrops, for roadways (bigger, Type V) and pedestrians (smaller, Types III, IV). When light is needed on the road as well as for pedestrian traffic, cutoff can be used. Cutoff has advantages (good light control on the property line) and also disadvantages (reduces vertical illumination and efficiency). It was stated that DC uprights were designed for Incandescent lights, and hence use conversion kits now. DDOT requested cost information regarding retrofits and new installations for globes, kits and casings.
March 2005
58
Commercial Lighting Sales, Inc. DCI met with Jim Wheeler from Commercial Lighting Sales. Commercial Lighting Sales represents Spring City (manufactures cast iron posts, luminaire, arms, etc), Valmont (manufactures Cobrahead) and GE (manufactures Cobrahead Fixtures, Ballast conversion kit, etc). For narrow sidewalks, Spring City came up with 17 inches diameter for a No. 16 pole with a narrow base and 12 inches bolt circles, accepted by DDOT. The shafts that are being used fit in narrow bases (interchangeable). It can use the same casing and the globe can withstand 400 Watt. The No. 14 narrow base poles are being used mostly on Ohio Drive. It was mentioned that a higher pole means a higher wattage, and a higher wattage means a higher conduit. But wider bolt circles will have better stability and a clearer opening for more conduits. In Chinatown, the Teardrop has been cast and fixtures were manufactured by Spring City. They mentioned that dark skies are very conflicting because sometimes it is required to illuminate the building for safety reasons. The District sometimes uses Finial. A Pineapple Finial is mounted on a No. 16 pole when used as a traffic post. The ballast kit fits inside the existing casing. The luminaire used is GE (M-400A2). It has two doors underneath 1) for the light, and 2) for the ballast (this second door is called the power door). This separate power door allows for quick maintenance. There are 4 bolts on the Pendant pole with two clamps. If maintenance person or electric cranks up one clamp there is another. The main issue is that there is not enough spacing for wires, as in other products. The Cobrahead has a twist lock photocell and all the other posts have a button type. The Induction lamp has been used in Europe for quite some time. The only problem is that it has a lower wattage (130-150 Watt) but has a long life. Plain plastic globes are generally used in the District. The formed plastic globe is made of stipple polycarbonate. The stipple Acrylic Globe does not yellow like plastic and therefore is a better way to go, as plastic becomes brittle with age. Acrylic is also better for higher wattages. The refractive globes demonstration is in front of the FBI building. When reflectors are used (for Type III an asymmetric lighting pattern), maintenance people need to be aware of the distribution of light so that the light should be focused on the streets (and not on the building). Generally, beam control fixtures (louvers and refractive globes) have maintenance issues, as they need more time to service (need to be taken to the shop for service, no onsite service). Commercial Lighting Sales are supplying louvered acorn globes for Pennsylvania Avenues Streetlight project. The Federal Colors are 16099 Gray and 27038 - Black. DCs gray is not same as 16099. DCs gray is more dark gray and 16099 has bluish tint. The Downtown BID requires black color (27038). They developed their own spacing criteria; so standard spacing is already available for the Downtown BID. National Park Services mostly use the black color. The black color is used for decorative purposes and the aluminum finish is used for Cobraheads. The globes that are used currently have a dimple like pattern and are not refractive. Fluting Pattern, i.e., 16 flat flute, is available for the Twin-20 pole and No. 16. (Standard for DC). Sharp flute (8) is available for Pendant poles. The steel shaft is provided for the Twin-20 and the Pendant pole; and the cast iron shaft is generally used for other types, such as the Nos.16,
March 2005
59
14, and 18. On Georgia Avenue, the No.18 pole is being used and people are discontent with No.18 poles and want to get back to the No.16 pole. In Monumental Core, No.18 poles are used for traffic poles (can also use No. 716). Generally both the Nos. 18 and 16 can be used as traffic poles. The No. 716 pole is used under Chinatown fixtures. It is a 14 feet tall pole and it is a less expensive version of the No.16 pole. Sometimes the No.716 pole is used for signs (generally mounted on the side). The T-base is not painted, but generally galvanized. The only time it was painted was in Chinatown, where it was painted green, and the pole was painted red. The No. 716 pole, when used with traffic control devices, uses 16099 color and a galvanized T-Base. Teardrops, a Columbian Series in Type III and V, are available. Glass and plastic globes are available for it. As glass is heavy, it is easier to service the plastic globes. It can be mounted on regular Pendant poles.
March 2005
60
March 2005
61
pattern and with a semi-cutoff distribution; and a Boston Boulevard Pendant Twin (similar to a Teardrop pole) with a 26 foot mounting height and a 250 Watt Mercury Vapor lighting fixture. City of New York Mr. Moktar Gabriel, P.E., Deputy Chief Engineer, City of New York Department of Transportation, was interviewed. The lighting illumination ranges used as a guideline within the City of New York are slightly higher than the recommended ranges within AASHTO. The recommended uniformity ratios are similar to the AASHTO guidelines. The primary poles and luminaires used within the City are Cobrahead lighting poles with 100, 150 or 250 Watt HPS luminaires. In designated Special Areas, Globe type fixtures are used with luminaires ranging from 100 to 400 Watt HPS. In Decorative Areas, Teardrop style lighting poles with 150 or 250 Watt HPS or MH luminaires are used. For overhead signs, 175 Watt MH lighting fixtures are used.
require the usage of HPS lamps with a flat lens, medium cutoff distribution, and a Type III lighting pattern. Other Cities Prismatic globes have become the standard practice for many jurisdictions now. Examples in the metropolitan area are Baltimore, Frederick, and Falls Church. The City of Rehoboth Beach has developed, as a part of the streetscape project, a unique streetlight design, with twin arm, teardrop lights in the median and concrete poles with prismatic, Washington-type globes on the sidewalks. They use pendant poles to support traffic signals over the intersections. More information on these implementations will be provided in the Final Document.
March 2005
63
What types of pole (by material) are used in various areas (i.e. aluminum, steel, cast iron, concrete, fiberglass, wood, etc.)? ____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ What is your experience about them? _____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Any remarks on concrete poles (if used) ___________________________________ 3. What types of pole (by type) are used in various areas (e.g., Upright, Cobrahead, etc.)? i) Historic district ______________ ii) Commercial area____________________ iii) Residential _________________________ iii) Other _____________________________ 4. What type of fixtures do you use for tunnel lighting? __________________________ Underpass lighting? ___________________________ What is your experience about them? _____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 5. What type of fixtures do you use for sign lighting? ___________________________ What is your experience about them? _____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Is there any particular type that you'd use to provide the true color of signs? _____________________________________________________________________ 6. What lighting manufacturers are used for the poles and lighting fixtures? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 7. Specific Issues/agency solutions: i) Dark skies. What do you do to achieve dark skies? Refractive globe or lens _____, shield ______, any other____ ii) ADA requirement (36" sidewalk). What do you do when you have an alreadynarrow sidewalk ________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
March 2005
64
March 2005
65
March 2005
66
4. Light readings will be taken to get an understanding of lighting strength 5. Lighting tours should be conducted in March before the next meeting 6. Tentative Next Meetings: April 14th at 10 am May 12th at 10 am May 25th at 10 am All future meetings will be held in DDOTs Traffic Services Administrations 7th floor Conference Room. You will take the elevator to the 7th floor and go to your left through the double glass doors. Continue down this hallway until you see another set of elevators on your left. Turn right at this elevator and go through another set of glass doors. The receptionist will direct you to the room. Evaluation Criteria as determined by Advisory Committee Efficiency Aesthetics Color of light Level of light pollution Type of roadway (highway, corridor, residential, commercial) Type of fixture Ability to standardize Spacing of poles
March 2005
67
March 2005
68
March 2005
69
height and the spacing between them. Commercial lights (from stores, shopping centers, etc.) contribute to the prevailing lighting levels on the roadways/sidewalks. There was a discussion whether it should be considered in the design of streetlights. It was concluded that there was no control over these lights (as to when it would come on or go off); so it was not feasible to use in the design. Moreover, commercial lights are in commercial areas, where bright light may not be a problem. In the case of narrow sidewalks, instead of using a pole with a smaller base, a shorter pole (proportional with narrow base) should be considered, as the pole may not look proportional with a narrow base. There was a recommendation to look into the role of the pole bases. For example, a square base, also known as a transformer base, has a maintenance issue, is prone to vandalism and often gets rusted out. Mike Dorsey explained that these bases were used to house transformers for mercury vapor lamps and thus, called a transformer base. Although Mercury Vapor lamps are being phased out, the access door in the transformer base continues to provide the ease of cable maintenance. Anchor based poles with hand holes can be alternatives; however, these are not used. The steel and cast iron poles when painted with the same color look different. Therefore, even if the same color is picked for a neighborhood, the color may vary depending on the material of pole. Poles used to be painted every 7 years; now, they are powder coated. In general, DC uses gray and NPS uses black colored poles. The poles on the bridges are usually colored different than these. Intersections should have different design criteria. The consultant needs to look into mid-block vs. intersection criteria. The recommendations of the study should be a multi-dimensional matrix, the contexts for which should include: a) roadway functional class, b) area type (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.), and c) special areas, such as historic districts, bridges, etc. In the alleys, generally a full-cutoff luminaire is used. New installations are there on the south side of U Street, near Reeve's Center. A suggestion was made for the use of short poles in the case of trees. The design should also consider handicap accessibilities. The final product should have an illustration with a small area map indicating the standards applied to various contexts within the map. A list of definitions needs to be included for a better understanding. The lit pictures of the prismatic globes can also be presented to have a visual understanding. One very important thing is to educate public regarding the brightness, safety, etc. Most people think that if an area is bright, then there is no crime; but in some cases, it was found that bright light has attracted some criminals.
March 2005
70
5. There was a discussion on the evaluation matrix, as follows: The evaluation matrix will be used to compare various alternatives; however, it will be used as a general guide and multiple candidate alternatives will be selected. For the first table, it was suggested that the level of pollution should be considered not only for the upward direction, but for sideways direction also. Historic, Monumental Core and Special streets should also be considered for type of roadways. The height of the pole should also be considered along with the spacing of the poles, because height is one of the contributors for bright light. For the second table, among the lamp alternatives, Mercury Vapor and Incandescent light were being phasing out (towards HPS) and therefore, did not need to be evaluated. MH has been used mostly in Monumental Core. New technologies like the LED Light and Induction Lights should be evaluated. Induction lights have been used a lot in Europe, and the lamp and ballast is one assembly. This lamp has a life of 25 years and is generally used in residential areas, but needs 100% cutoff. The quality of light, consistency and illumination levels should also be considered. The life cycle cost should be used as one of the evaluation criteria. Instead of a cost figure, subjective qualitative rating (e.g., high, medium and low) or numerical grades (e.g., 1-10) can be assigned for the life cycle cost. The third table needs to tailor to suite the context of the area of usage. Type of area (residential/commercial) should be considered. The height of the building, sidewalk width, roadway width, and public space width should also be considered. It was concluded that different matrices would be generated for each different context. 6. There will be a follow-up meeting for evaluation using the matrix on May 28 (10 a.m. - Noon). DCI will work on setting up the matrix and send out to the Committee ahead of time.
March 2005
71
Aesthetics Color of light Level of light pollution (upward & sideways) Roadway classification (Interstate, Other Freeway & Expressway, Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, Local and Alley)
Subjective rating (1-10) Subjective rating (1-10) Subjective rating (1-10) N/A
March 2005
72
Criteria Suggested by Advisory Committee Area Type (Commercial, Intermediate & Residential)
Comment
Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a context for evaluation. It is also design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Special Type Does not represent an objective (Gateways, Monumental Core, BIDS) function that can be rated or optimized. It is a context for evaluation. It is also design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Tunnels/Underpass Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a context for evaluation. It is also design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Bridges Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a context for evaluation. It is also design issue and the study will have criteria for them. This is an item for evaluation, not a Type of fixture criterion. Ability to standardize Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Spacing of poles Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Height of the pole Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Height of the building Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Base of the pole Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Road Width Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Sidewalk Width Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. Crime Rate Does not represent an objective function that can be rated or optimized. It is a design issue and the study will have criteria for them. * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
March 2005
73
4. The quantifiable evaluation criteria suggested by the Committee are shown in the following table. It also presents two additional criteria identified. However, all identified criteria were not applicable to evaluating each individual item. Therefore, appropriate criteria were identified for each evaluation item (e.g., lamp, globe, shielding and pole). The matrix can be further expanded if DDOT/Committee feels more items are to be evaluated.
Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics Color of light (rendition) Level of Light Pollution (upward & sideways) Existing Usage* Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost Operational & Maintenance Cost * Represents preserving existing investment
5. The following table lists the variables that generate various contexts for evaluation. The context determines the weight of the evaluation criteria and therefore, the evaluation of the same item under two different scenarios (i.e., contexts) can result in two different sets of weights, and subsequently, outcomes can be different. The context list was examined for each of the evaluation items to determine whether the desirability (i.e., weight of the criteria) of the item changes with respect to the context. The context type can be grouped together if the item was independent of the context type. For example, all Roadway Functional Classifications for lamp alternatives can be grouped as one, as the lamp alternatives are independent of the Functional Classifications. In some cases, the evaluation alternative was predetermined for a specific context. For example, the shielding and the pole alternatives are predetermined for Interstate/Other Freeway & Expressway and for Alleys. Few of the contexts, such as the Commercial and Intermediate/Residential, change the desirability of the shielding alternatives. In the Special Type context, the pole alternatives need to be determined for Historic, Gateways and Bridges.
March 2005
74
Functional type (Interstate, Other Freeway & Expressway, Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, Local and Alley) Area Type (Commercial, Intermediate & Residential) Special Type (Gateways, Monumental Core, BIDS, Tunnel/Underpass, Bridges, Historic) Scenarios
All - Independent
All - Independent
Interstate/Other Freeway & Expressway and Alley Predetermined Others - Independent All Independent (??) Monumental Core and Each BIDS Predetermined Historic, Gateway and Bridges To be determined Tunnel/Underpass N/A 1. All Inclusive (General) Special Type N/A 2. Special Type - Gateway 3. Special Type - Bridges 4. Special Type - Historic
All - Independent Monumental Core and Each BIDS Predetermined Gateway To be determined Others - Independent 1. All Inclusive (General) Special Type N/A 2. Special Type - Gateway
All - Independent
All - Independent
6. The Evaluation Matrices for Lamps are as follows: Scenario Context - Functional Class = All, Area type = All, Special Types = N/A
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) HPS Candidate Alternative Rating* Metal Inductive Fluorescent Halide
Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics Color of light Level of Light Pollution (upward & sideways) Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index 10 6 6 6
10
10 6
2 5
0 6
0 10
March 2005
75
Scenario Context - Functional Class = N/A, Area type = N/A, Special Types = Gateway
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) HPS Candidate Alternative Rating* Metal Inductive Fluorescent Halide
Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics Color of light Level of Light Pollution (upward & sideways) Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index
10
6 10 6
10 2 5
9 0 6
8 0 10
7. The Evaluation Matrices for Globes are as follows: Scenario Context - Functional Class = All, Area type = Commercial, Special Types = N/A
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) the 8 8 Candidate Alternative Rating* Plain Prismatic Plain with shielding
5 Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 8 Color of light Level of Light Pollution 1 (upward & sideways) 8 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost 10 Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.
8 8 2 9
8 8 0 8
Scenario Context - Functional Class = All, Area type = Intermediate/Residential, Special Types = N/A
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) the 5 8 8 Candidate Alternative Rating* Plain Prismatic Plain with shielding
Efficiency (based on following, as applicable) Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc.
March 2005
76
Evaluation Criteria
Weight (w)
Aesthetics Color of light Level of Light Pollution 1 (upward & sideways) 8 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost 10 Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.
Scenario Context - Functional Class = N/A, Area type = N/A, Special Types = Gateway
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) the 8 8 Candidate Alternative Rating* Plain Prismatic Plain with shielding
5 Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 8 Color of light Level of Light Pollution 1 (upward & sideways) 8 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost 10 Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.
8 8 2 9
8 8 0 8
8. The Evaluation Matrices for Shielding are as follows: Scenario Context - Functional Class = All (except Interstate/Other Freeway & Expressway and Alley), Area type = Commercial, Special Types = All
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) Candidate Alternative Rating* Cutoff Semi Cutoff Full Cutoff Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) Life duration 8 Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 8 Color of light Level of Light Pollution 8 (upward & sideways) Existing Usage 9 Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.
10
8 6 1
8 10 1
March 2005
77
Scenario Context - Functional Class = All (except Interstate/Other Freeway & Expressway and Alley), Area type = Intermediate/Residential, Special Types = All
Evaluation Criteria Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) 8 6 Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 8 8 Color of light Level of Light Pollution 8 6 (upward & sideways) 9 1 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred. 10 Weight (w) Candidate Alternative Rating* Cutoff Semi Cutoff Full Cutoff
8 10 1
9. The Evaluation Matrices for Poles are as follows: Scenario Context - Functional Class = All (except Interstate/Other Freeway & Expressway and Alley), Area type = All, Special Types = N/A
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) Candidate Alternative Rating* Upright Twin- Pendant Teardrop Poles 20 Pole
Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) 7 6 Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 9 10 Color of light Level of Light Pollution (upward & sideways) 8 2 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost 7 6 Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred. 10 9
8 10
2 9
Scenario Context - Functional Class = N/A, Area type = N/A, Special Types = Gateway
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) Candidate Alternative Rating* Upright Twin- Pendant Teardrop Poles 20 Pole
Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 7 6 10 9
10
March 2005
78
Evaluation Criteria
Weight (w)
Color of light Level of Light Pollution (upward & sideways) 8 2 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost 7 6 Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.
8 10
2 9
Scenario Context - Functional Class = N/A Area type = N/A, Special Types = Bridges
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) Candidate Alternative Rating* Upright Twin- Pendant Teardrop Poles 20 Pole
Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) 7 6 Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 9 10 Color of light Level of Light Pollution (upward & sideways) 8 2 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost 7 6 Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred. 10 9
8 10
2 9
Scenario Context - Functional Class = N/A, Area type = N/A, Special Types = Historic
Evaluation Criteria Weight (w) Candidate Alternative Rating* Upright Twin- Pendant Teardrop Poles 20 Pole
Efficiency (based on the following, as applicable) 7 6 Life duration Power consumption Light output/distribution, etc. Aesthetics 9 10 Color of light Level of Light Pollution (upward & sideways) 8 2 Existing Usage Lifecycle Cost Initial Cost 7 6 Operational & Maintenance Cost Composite Index * Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred. 10 9
8 10
2 9
March 2005
79
11. The Streetlight Advisory Committee suggested that the Matrix should be designed in a different way that will be more focused for the designers and citizens. 12. The Committee recommended that the heights of the poles, spacing between the poles, etc, be considered as important criteria that need to be evaluated. It was suggested that the neighbors should be given a choice to choose the wattage but the spacing and the height of the poles should be standard. The poles will be there for the next 50 years but the bulbs can be changed for brighter or dimmer neighborhoods. 13. The matrix should consider a road that changes its functional classification and/or area type from one segment to another. For example, New York Avenue changes from Industrial Collector in the East to Downtown in the West. 14. It was mentioned that Light Pollution is not always desirable but sometimes is needed/required. For example in Downtown, uplight may be desired. 15. Based upon the above discussions, Elizabeth Miller suggested using a chart similar to the one below that could be used for evaluation. The committee agreed that this was the best guide to use. A full chart will be prepared for the next meeting. Suggested Matrix Commercial (Sidewalk width) Spacing of poles Height of the pole Base of the pole Aesthetics 16. It was noted that HPS is preferred at this time in spite of its orange light because of its long life (i.e., 6 years) and energy efficiency when compared to MH, which has a life of 3 years. The MH initial cost is approximately 10% more than HPS. Inductive lamps also produce white light, are long lasting and energy efficient. They are widely used in Europe, however they have not yet been converted into a technology for wide use in the States. The research continues and it is expected to become a viable alternative in the next few years. 17. The Committee noted that the Color of Light (e.g., white, yellow, etc.) needed to be considered and not the type of lamp (e.g., HPS, MH, etc.). It was agreed upon that White light is preferred for all areas/scenarios as the future strategy of the District; however, the cost consideration must be made. The committee agreed on the following when determining the color that bulbs emit. Intermediate Residential (Mixed Use) Monumental Historic Core City and Street
March 2005
80
White light is preferred. HPS lamps will continue to be used, until such time when the lifecycle cost of white light (e.g., MH, inductive or other feasible technology) is comparable to HPS. The consistency in the neighborhood must be maintained (i.e., there should not be a mismatch of light color in the same neighborhood). 18. Since, the migration to total white light has to wait for technology to catch up, the committee agreed upon the following strategies for typical maintenance replacement of lights in the interim: Change HPS to HPS. Change Incandescent (white) to another white (MH). Change MH to MH. 19. For now, MH is being used only in Monumental Core. It was mentioned that the Historic Districts and Historic Streets are treated the same by DDOT and the Downtown BID will need to follow DDOT. 20. It was suggested that the neighborhoods should be given a range of options to select the wattage of a bulb. Wattage will be discussed further at the next meeting. 21. The placement of poles is based on the existing infrastructure (i.e. utilities, trees, etc. dictate to some degree where a pole cannot be placed). The Committee suggested that a preferred placement be selected, which can be adjusted according to the infrastructure constraints. 22. The Advisory Committee had full consensus on the use of Prismatic Globes, because it contributes to more control on light distribution and also saves power consumption. No objection was received when asked for. Next Meeting Schedule: The next meeting is scheduled tentatively for Wednesday, May 5, 2004 from 10:00am 12:00am. A separate meeting reminder will be sent at a later date. The Committee was requested to think about the following items for discussion in the next meeting: Height of the pole Spacing between the poles Base of the pole Color of the pole Materials of the pole Bulb Wattage
March 2005
81
March 2005
82
distribution of light. Further discussion on establishing minimum spacing requirements will occur during next meeting. 13. For a Commercial area, the amount of light on the street and the sidewalk needs to be considered. For an Intermediate area, the amount of light on the street and the house needs to be considered. For a Residential area, no light is required on the house. 14. Monumental Core and BIDs are taken off the table as they have been or will be dictated. Next Meeting Schedule: The next meeting is scheduled tentatively for Friday, May 14, 2004 from 10:00am 12:00am. A separate meeting reminder will be sent at a later date. The Consultant and the Committee was requested to fill in the updated matrix with their recommendation.
March 2005
83
Criteria
Commercial
Residential
Bridges
Alley
Comments
Pole Type
Cobra Head, Cobra Head Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18
- Citizens to choose from (Bold is our preferred) - Pendant Posts are economical - Currently being widely used
Spacing of poles Height of pole Base of pole Color of pole Material of pole
60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations side) - all orientations side) - all orientations Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey
60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one side) - all side) - all orientations orientations
Grey
Grey
N/A N/A
- Currently used
Preferred Orientation
N/A
It was suggested to include a footnote that mentions the height of the building, sidewalk width and roadway width be considered as a contextual item. As the height of the building, sidewalk width and roadway width vary so much from one neighborhood to another, it couldnt be included in the matrix but it should be considered contextually for a case specific study. It was suggested that the industrial Cobrahead Pendant pole be phased out and instead a decorative Teardrop be used except in Alleys (Cobrahead 5A). It was noted that for Residential areas the light on the sidewalk is important. There were concerns about Pendant poles being efficient enough to light the sidewalks, as most of the time
March 2005
84
the trees cover the arm thus reducing the downward light. Tree trimming was recommended as a solution to this. In Residential areas and on Bridges, it was recommended to replace Upright poles (#14, 16, 18) in kind and Cobrahead by decorative Teardrop. For Tunnels/Underpasses, suggestion was made to use Upright poles for pedestrian Tunnels and Wall packs for vehicular Tunnels. For the spacing between the poles, a footnote was suggested that states, for special case when the spacing has to be less than the recommended, it must be justified as to why. This will give an option to a neighborhood to have poles closer if they wanted to (if that makes them feel safe). Regarding the color of the poles on the bridges, it was mentioned that the poles are generally matched to the bridge color. A question was raised whether the color of the pole should be a part of this study or the citizens should be given a choice to choose the color they want. It was noted that a single color would help the maintenance program. The updated matrix after incorporating the inputs is as follows: Revised Matrix for Non-Historic Streets (with Underground Powerlines)
Intermediate (Mixed Use) Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18 Tunnels/ Underpasses Wall packs for vehicular Tunnels, #14, #16, #18 for pedestrain Tunnels
Criteria
Residential Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18 (Note: Replace Upright in kind and Cobrahead changes to Tear Drop) Full Cutoff / Cutoff
Bridges Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18 (Note: Replace Upright in kind and Cobrahead changes to Tear Drop) Full Cutoff / Cutoff
Comments
Pole Type
- Citizens to choose from (Bold is our preferred) - Pendant Posts are economical - Currently being widely used
Cutoff Criteria Minimum Spacing btw poles* Height of pole Base of pole Color of pole Material of pole Preferred Orientation
N/A - For special case one can use spacing less than recommended, but needs to be justified.
60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations side) - all orientations side) - all orientations side) - all orientations side) - all orientations
N/A
Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey N/A Grey
N/A N/A N/A N/A -Staggered chosen because of uniformity - Opposite for bridge for aesthetics/symmetry - Currently used (needs to be checked)
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered
Opposite
Staggered
N/A
Note: * For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified
4. The following Matrix was presented to the Committee for the Non-Historic Streets with Overhead Powerlines.
March 2005
85
Criteria
Commercial
Residential
Alley
Bridges
Comments
Pole Type Spacing of poles Height of pole Base of pole Color of pole/arm Material of pole Preferred Orientation
Full Cutoff: Cobra Head, Alt: Dec. Tear Drop 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations
Full Cutoff: Cobra Head, Cobra Head Alt: Dec. Tear Drop 60 ft, min (on one 60 ft, min (on one side) - all side) - all orientations orientations
N/A
N/A
Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey Grey
N/A N/A
N/A
* Note: Existing Upright poles in overhead area will be phased out for consistency.
The lighting arm is the only option as it is attached to the utility wooden poles. Since the industrial Cobrahead is going to be phased out, a decorative Teardrop arm will be used except in Alleys (Cobrahead 5A). It was mentioned that a full-cutoff is not always preferred, as sometimes uplight is needed for lighting a building. The updated Matrix after incorporating the input is as follows:
Revised Matrix for Non-Historic Streets (with Overhead Powerlines)
Criteria
Commercial
Residential
Alley
Bridges
Tunnels/ Underpasses
Comments
Pole Type** Dec. Tear Drop Cutoff Criteria Minimum Spacing btw poles* Height of pole Base of pole Color of pole/arm Material of pole Preferred Orientation Grey
Full Cutoff / Cutoff Full Cutoff / Cutoff 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations
Full Cutoff / Cutoff Full Cutoff / Cutoff 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations
N/A N/A
N/A
Note: * For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified ** Existing Upright poles in overhead area will be phased out for consistency.
March 2005
86
Pole Type
60 ft, min (on one Spacing of side) - all poles orientations Height of pole Base of pole Grey Color of pole Material of pole Preferred Staggered Orientation
N/A
Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey Grey
5. The Evaluation Matrix for Historic Areas/Streets was presented as follows: It was suggested that the Twin-20 be used if necessary and the justifications need to be mentioned for using it. Signalized Intersections will use the shortest pole that meets signal requirements. Unsignalized intersections will use the shortest pole that will illuminate the center of the intersection uniformly. The updated matrix is as follows:
March 2005
87
Criteria
Commercial
Residential
Bridges
Alley
Comments
#14, #16, #18, Twin #14, #16, #18, Twin #14, #16, #18 20** 20**
Pole Type
- Currently used for historic areas. - Truly historical to DC - Aesthetically more pleasing -For Signalized Intersection, the shortest possible pole that will meet the trafic signal criterion - For Unsignalized Intersection, the shortest possible pole that will illuminate the intersection uniformly
Cutoff Criteria Minimum Spacing btw poles* Height of pole Base of pole Color of pole Material of pole Preferred Orientation
Full Cutoff / Cutoff Full Cutoff / Cutoff Full Cutoff / Cutoff Full Cutoff / Cutoff Full Cutoff / Cutoff 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations
N/A N/A
Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey Grey Grey
Note: * For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified ** Twin 20 not necessarily desirable unless special
6. The matrix for the Special Street that includes Gateways and NHS was presented to the Committee:
March 2005
88
Minimum Spacing btw poles Height of pole Base of pole Color of Grey pole Material of pole Preferred Opposite Orientation
N/A
It was mentioned that the BIDS and NPS areas use Black as their pole color. It was noted that Twin-20; can be used with different wattage and photometric distribution to achieve different lighting levels for different type of areas. It was suggested that the discussion on glare include in the document. Revised Matrix for Special Street (Gateways and NHS)
Criteria Commercial Twin 20**, Alt: Decorative Tear Drop Full Cutoff / Cutoff Intermediate (Mixed Use) Twin 20**, Alt: Decorative Tear Drop Full Cutoff / Cutoff Residential Twin 20**, Alt: Decorative Tear Drop Full Cutoff / Cutoff Bridges Twin 20**, Alt: Decorative Tear Drop Full Cutoff / Cutoff Tunnels/ Underpasses Comments - Twin 20s are DC signature poles -Aesthetically more pleasing
Pole Type Cutoff Criteria Minimum Spacing btw poles* Height of pole Base of pole Color of pole Material of pole Preferred Orientation
60 ft, min (on one side) - 60 ft, min (on one side) - 60 ft, min (on one side) - 60 ft, min (on one side) all orientations all orientations all orientations all orientations
Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey/Black*** Grey Grey Grey
N/A N/A N/A N/A Opposite N/A - Opposite may be aesthetically more pleasing - DC Grey is DC Signature
Note: * For Special Case, the spacing can be less than recommended, but it must be justified ** Committee can decide *** Black for BIDS and NPS areas
Next Meeting Schedule: The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 19, 2004 from 10:00am 12:00am. The Committee was requested to
March 2005
89
Think whether color should be a part of this study or not and if so, what color is suggested Review the updated matrices, Think about the pole type on Special Streets, To determine hierarchy of Special Streets vs. Historic Streets.
March 2005
90
March 2005
91
6. The Committee suggested the Residential neighborhoods should be allowed to choose between Pendant (Teardrop) and Upright poles (#14, 16, 18). For a Teardrop Pendant pole, a decorative arm with a fixture still needs to be chosen by DDOT. 7. The Committee suggested defining the Historic Areas and Streets in glossary or a footnote in the final document. The Committee recommended to make a note that, any Special District that have adopted their standards through rule making process are exempt from this policy. An example is the Downtown Business Improvement District. 8. The Committee was interested to see the Photometric for Teardrop vs. Cobrahead (whether it is 1:1?) and Twin-20 throughout (mid-block and intersection) vs. Twin-20 at intersection and uprights at mid-blocks (which one is more economical). The Consultant will prepare this information. 9. The Committee was requested to think about an appropriate name that defines all Special Streets in order to give them a sense of importance/grandeur. 10. The Committee suggested few footnotes and comments to be added in the Evaluation Matrices. The updated matrices are as shown in Table 17, Table 18, Table 19, and Table 21. Next Meeting Schedule: The next meeting is scheduled tentatively for Wednesday, June 16, 2004 from 10:00am 12:00am. In this meeting, the consultant will present the document. A separate meeting reminder will be sent at a later date.
March 2005
92