Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 99

District of Columbia

STREETLIGHT POLICY
AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Final Report

District Department of Transportation 2000 14th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009

March 2005

District Department of Transportation

d.

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

5.5 5.6 5.7

Hardware Recommendations ................................................................................... 37 Design Principles ..................................................................................................... 46 Design Examples ..................................................................................................... 48

6. NEXT STEPS .......................................................................................................................51 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH SUMMARY ......................................................................................52

March 2005

ii

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Grand Plan

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.

OVERVIEW OF MAJOR CHANGES


The following significant deviations from the current practices were adopted: 1. The existing widely used Cobrahead fixtures may be substituted (except for 5A Alley poles) by a new Teardrop fixture with decorative arms. Teardrop fixture was preferred because of its aesthetic and architectural qualities for outdoor lighting. However, the extent of substitution of the Cobrahead fixtures with Teardrop fixtures depends entirely on the funding situation and priority, which the District Government should evaluate before establishing the policy. A decorative arm with a Teardrop fixture has been selected by DDOT. 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-light lamps may replace the yellow-light, high-pressure sodium lamps in the future (except for alleys), when their life-cycle cost becomes comparable to that of yellow-light lamps.

March 2005

ES-1

District of Columbia Streetlight Grand Plan

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Grand Plan

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

design illustration of roadways going through various types of areas. Chapter 6 discusses the recommendations for future.

March 2005

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Globe Photo Control Casing

Shaft Shaft

Base

Base

Upright Pole

Pendant Pole

Figure 1. Components of Streetlight Poles - Upright and Pendant

March 2005

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

2.2 AASHTO ROADWAY LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS


American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Illumination Engineers Society (IES) of North America recommend Table 1 and Table 2 as the guidelines for lighting design. These tables establish some threshold values, which a roadway lighting designer meets by using either the illuminance technique or the luminance technique. Table 1. AASHTO & IES-Suggested Maintained Luminance Values for Roadways
Luminance Roadway Classification Freeway Class A a Freeway Class B a b Expressway Commercial Intermediate Residential Major b Commercial Intermediate Residential Collector b Commercial Intermediate Residential Local b Commercial Intermediate Residential Alleys b Commercial Intermediate Residential
a b

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

Veiling Luminance Ratio Lv(max)/Lavg 0.3:1 0.3:1

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Table 2. AASHTO and IES-Suggested Maintained Illuminance Values for Roadways


Average Illuminance Pavement Classification R1 R2 & R3 R4 FootLux FootLux FootLux candles candles candles 0.6 6 0.8 9 0.7 8 0.4 6 0.6 6 0.5 5 0.9 10 1.3 14 1.2 13 0.7 8 1.1 12 0.9 10 0.6 6 0.8 9 0.7 8 1.1 12 1.6 17 1.4 15 0.8 9 1.2 13 1.0 11 0.6 6 0.8 9 0.7 8 0.7 8 1.1 12 0.9 10 0.6 6 0.8 9 0.7 8 0.4 4 0.6 6 0.5 5 0.6 6 0.8 9 0.7 8 0.5 5 0.7 7 0.6 6 0.3 3 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.6 6 0.5 5 0.3 3 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.2 2 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.9 10 1.3 14 1.2 13 0.6 6 0.8 9 0.7 8 0.3 3 0.4 4 0.4 4 1.4 15 2.0 22 1.8 19

Roadway Classification Freeway Class A a Freeway Class B a Expressway b,c

Uniformity avg/min 3:1 3:1

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

6:1 3:1 4:1 6:1 3:1

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Illuminance Uniformity Ratio

Veiling Luminance Ratio (max) (max)


c

OffRoadway Light Sources General

Uniformity Lavg/ Lmin Lavg/ Lmin

Land Use

Lv(max)/ Lavg d

Urban Principal Arterials Interstate

Other freeways

Other Principal Arterials (partial or no control of access)

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

Urban Minor Arterials

Commercial Intermediate Residential

Collector

Commercial Intermediate Residential

Local

As uniformity ratio allows

Commercial Intermediate Residential

Alleys

Commercial Intermediate Residential

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

Pedestrian Ways and Bicycle a Lanes

Commercial Intermediate Residential All

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Mixed (diffuse and specular)

R3

0.07

Slightly specular

R4
*

0.08

Mostly specular

Qo = representative mean luminance coefficient

Source: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. ANSI/IES RP-8.1983; Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

March 2005

11

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

2.3 LIGHT SOURCES


The light source is the most important element of illumination equipment. It is the principal determinant of visual quality, illumination efficiency, energy conservation, and the economic aspects of the lighting system. There are numerous types of light sources that are being used in roadway lighting. They include Mercury Vapor, Metal Halide, High-Pressure Sodium (HPS), Low-Pressure Sodium, and Fluorescent. The light sources are generally compared on the basis of four major characteristics: 1. Luminous efficacy (i.e., the number of lumens produced per watt of energy) 2. Color rendition (i.e., color quality) 3. Lamp life (i.e., number of operating hours) 4. Optical control As mentioned earlier, HPS, Metal Halide, Mercury Vapor, Fluorescent and Incandescent lamps are generally used. HPS is the most efficient option with a long life, while Metal Halide has an excellent color rendition. Incandescent and Mercury Vapor are being phased out. The comparison of various lamp types is shown in Table 5. Table 5. Comparison of Lamps
Option Incandescent Method Lamps which produce light by using electric current to heat a filament Advantages Instant on Low initial cost Excellent color rendition Can be dimmed Compact in size Twice the light and less than half the heat of an Incandescent bulb of equal wattage. Long life (10,000-15,000 hrs) Efficient Good color rendition Long life (16,000-24,000 hrs) Low initial cost Disadvantages Short life (500-5,000 hrs) Inefficient to operate High heat output

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 Pressure Sodium

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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).

Typical Lamp Life for Three Light Sources


100

% Output (Lumen)

90 80 70 60 50 0 4800 9600 14400 19200

Legend

LPS HPS Range MH

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Based on 11 hours average usage per day, 7 days a week.

March 2005

14

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Option Steel Pole

Advantages Low initial cost

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Table 8. Comparison of Globes


Option Plastic (Acrylic) Globe Facts DR Acrylic is tougher form of acrylic that will not yellow from UV radiation. Not as resistant to breakage as polycarbonate. Excellent choice for both MH and HPS lamps. This impact resistant acrylic will last 10-15 years. Seldom used with MH lamps because MH emits larger amount of UV rays than HPS lamps do. Polycarbonate lenses and globes have a life of only 5-10 years. Plain Glass Advantages Acrylic does not yellow with exposure to UV radiation from either daylight or lamps. Disadvantages Standard acrylic is easily cracked and broken, so it is not recommended to be used as post-top lighting

Plastic (Polycarbonate) Globe

Very tough form of plastic

Yellows when expose to UV radiation and become brittle with time.

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.

2.7 LATERAL DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS


The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) establishes a series of lateral distribution patterns designated as Types I, II, III, IV and V. Types I and V represent symmetric lighting distribution and the luminaires are usually mounted over the center of the roadway. Types II, III and IV are asymmetric distribution and the luminaires are usually mounted near the edge of the roadway. Type I applies to rectangular patterns on narrow street, Type II to narrow streets, Type III to street of medium width, Type IV to wide streets and Types V to areas where light is to be distributed evenly in all directions. These are illustrated in the Figure 3.

March 2005

16

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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.

Type V A luminaire designed to distribute light equally in all lateral directions.

Figure 3. Type of Lighting Distribution5

2.8 POLE PLACEMENT CONFIGURATIONS


The luminaire placement is an integral part of an effective street-lighting design. The luminaires are mounted at a given height above the roadway, depending on the lamp output and characteristics of the roadway to be lighted at specific points along the roadway. Roadways with no medians may have the luminaires installed in a house-side location, which may be further described as a one-side system, a staggered system, or an opposite system. Roadways with wide medians and barriers may have the luminaire installed on a median lighting system, which provides very effective lighting at less cost because of the savings in luminaire supports and electrical conductors. The pole can be placed in various configurations as shown in Figure 4.
5

Source: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. ANSI/IES RP-8.1983; Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

March 2005

17

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

One Sided

Staggered Both Sides

Opposite Both Sides

S Cable

Center Mounted Arrangement

Median Mounted

Off Roadway Staggered Both Sides S Pole Spacing

Figure 4. Typical Mounting Configurations6

2.9 CUTOFF FIXTURES


It is important to control the distribution of light flux emission above the beam of maximum candlepower. At higher vertical angles, light flux emission generally contributes substantially
6

Source: Roadway Lighting Handbook, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983.

March 2005

18

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

900 No Light, 0% Light


80 0 1

00 CD/1 10% Lig 000 LM, ht

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

900 50CD/1000 LM, 5% Light


80 0 2

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

00 CD 20% L /1000 LM, ig ht

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

3. EXISTING DDOT PRACTICE


This chapter presents the current District practice for streetlight usage. It includes types of poles, lamps, wattages, illumination levels, special requirements, etc.

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

STATE DEPT. 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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

The 5A Alley post is widely used in alleys.

Figure 7. Washington Family Pendant Posts and 5A Alley Poles

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

3.4 ILLUMINATION LEVELS


DDOT uses AASHTO guidelines for roadway lighting for any new design.

3.5 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS


The Downtown Streetscape Regulation determines the streetlight poles, spacing and pattern in downtown area. There are several Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in DC. These include Georgetown, Downtown, Golden Triangle and North of Massachusetts Avenue (NOMA) BIDs. The No. 18 poles are generally used in the BIDS. The Downtown BID specifies the pole type and the Golden Triangle BID specifies the color of the pole to be black (Federal 27038). The NOMA BID is being formed, and therefore, its standards are yet to be determined. The Monumental Core area uses black upright poles (No. 16 or Twin-20) with 400 Watt MH conversion kits. In the District, MH lights are currently being used only in Monumental Core. The District is in the process of defining Gateways (i.e., significant entry points) into the city. There are approximately 55 Gateways into the District. The Twin-20 poles have been used on Georgia Avenue (inside the DC line) and on New York Avenue (inside the City). 16th Street is also going to have Twin-20 poles.

March 2005

23

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

4. ILLUMINATION STANDARDS RECOMMENDATIONS


4.1 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATION LEVELS
AASHTO guidelines have been adopted as a basis for DC streetlight illumination standards. The design values proposed in the current Ballot Draft version of AASHTO guide is used in this policy. Any subsequent future modifications in AASHTO standards will be reviewed by DDOT for inclusion in this policy. Table 10 lists the recommended ranges for the average maintained illuminance levels for the various roadway classifications as defined by DDOT. The average maintained illuminance represents the output of the lamp and luminaire, after reduced by the maintenance factors (e.g., light loss depreciation and dirt depreciation); expressed in average foot-candles (lux) for the pavement area. The light loss depreciation is defined as the decline in the light lumen that occurs as a lamp is operated over time. Dirt accumulates on luminaires, decreases the total output of light and lowers the overall efficiency of the system. This process is called luminaire dirt depreciation. The table is derived for all types of road surface classification. Most of the roadway pavements in the District are either R2 or R3 class. Table 10. Recommended Average Maintained Illuminance for District Roadways7
Recommended Average Maintained Illuminance (foot-candle) R1 R2 & R3 R4 0.6 to 0.7 0.6 to 0.7 0.6 to 0.7 0.7 to 0.9 0.7 to 0.9 0.7 to 0.9 0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5

DC Street Classification Interstate

Land Use Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial

Other freeways and Expressway Principal Arterials

Minor Arterial

Collector

Local Street

Alleys

Recommendations based on Roadway Lighting Design Guide Ballot Draft, AASHTO, 2004.

March 2005

24

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

4.2 OTHER STANDARDS AND DESIGN CRITERIA


4.2.1 Uniformity Ratios

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

Veiling Luminance Ratios

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Table 13. Recommended Veiling Luminance Ratios9


DC Street Classification Interstate Other freeways and Expressway Principal Arterials Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Alleys Veiling Luminance Ratio 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1

4.2.3

Vertical Light Distribution Patterns10

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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.

4.3 LIGHTING ILLUMINATION OF SPECIAL AREAS


For special areas of the City, as defined by DDOT, higher average maintained illumination levels than those identified earlier might be desirable to draw special attention to the area. These could include, but not be limited to, Gateways of the City, Monumental Core Areas, and BID Areas. If these locations have their own regulations regarding the level of illumination, designs should be based on those regulations. Furthermore, DDOT will make the determination whether an area should be designed with different lighting criteria than those identified above (BIDS, National Park Service, Monumental Core, etc., are exempted as of the publication of this report).

March 2005

27

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

5. GENERAL HARDWARE RECOMMENDATIONS


This chapter presents recommendations for the streetlight hardware. The selection of hardware was mostly performed through a series of Streetlight Policy Advisory Committee meetings. The selection has been made as specific as possible, yet some flexibility for final selection has been left to the citizens. The recommendations are made for all neighborhoods in general; however, areas within the District, having their own regulations will be exempt from the requirements of this policy guideline. A separate discussion is provided in this chapter on these exempt locations, which override this guideline. In addition, historic and new bridges may deviate from these guidelines and may be designed with special decorative streetlight hardware to signify their importance.

5.1 OVERVIEW OF MAJOR CHANGES


The following deviations from the current practices are deemed significant and hence noted: 1. The existing widely used Cobrahead fixtures may be substituted (except for 5A Alley poles) by a new Teardrop fixture with decorative arms. Teardrop fixture was naturally preferred because of its aesthetic and architectural qualities for outdoor lighting. However, the extent of substitution of Cobrahead with Teardrop fixtures depends entirely on the funding situation and priority, which the District Government should evaluate before establishing the policy. A cost comparison is shown below. Table 15 presents a vendor-provided comparison between a Teardrop and a Cobrahead installation, for a particular scenario (40' wide street, 30' high pole, 6' arm and 2' offset from the curb). The use of this data results in per-mile capital costs of pole and fixture (excluding conduits, cables, etc.) to be $119,000 and $140,400, respectively, for Cobrahead and Teardrop. Table 15. Comparison between Teardrop and Cobrahead
Comparison Criteria Spacing Initial Cost Lamp Life Ballast Replacement Cost Photocell Life Globe Replacement Cost Life Expectancy Teardrop 318 feet $ 800 6 Years $ 100 10 Years $ 100 30 Years Cobrahead 294 feet $ 400 6 Years $ 90 10 Years $ 60 20 Years

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Figure 8. Selected Teardrop Fixture

March 2005

29

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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.

5.2 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES


The following miscellaneous items are included in the policy: 1. DDOT reserves the right to exempt certain areas on a case-by-case basis and pick any special streetlight fixture. 2. Prismatic globes will be used for new designs only. Since the prismatic globes have a different photometric pattern, it cannot replace a plain globe one to one and therefore, it cannot be retrofitted into existing light poles. 3. Alleys have a different illumination level requirement and hardware recommendation than streets. However, there are alleys that serve as access to households and therefore, regular requirements for alleys may not apply to them. The illumination level can be higher for such alleys and regular roadway requirements can be used. However, pole type will still have to be typical direct-buried type alley light pole (i.e., 5A Alley Pole), since alleys do not have additional right-of-way for the pole foundations. The fixtures and arms of the pole (other than regular 5A arm and cobrahead) can be selected on a case-by-case (such as a 3' decorative arm with teardrop fixture) depending on zoning, usage and historic significance of the alley. 4. The policy for house side shields and painting the globes black depends on the citizens and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

5.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE HARDWARE SELECTION


A number of factors contribute to the determination of streetlight hardware requirements. They include the following: Context Historic significance Significance of the streets Location of electrical power line

March 2005

30

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

North

Legend
Non-Historic Streets Historic Streets Historic Areas

Figure 9. Historic Streets in Washington, DC

March 2005

32

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Furthermore, certain streets are designated as the monumental core streets and are shown in Figure 10.

Legend Monumental Core

Figure 10. Monumental Core Streets 5.3.3 Significance of street

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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.

Street Type Special Streets

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

Non-His toric Stre ets Historic Streets

Figure 11. Special and Historic Streets in Washington, DC


March 2005 34

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Table 16. List of Special Streets


Special Streets 14 Street 16th Street Benning Road Bladensburg Road Blair Road Branch Avenue Brentwood Roadb Canal Road Connecticut Avenue Dalecarlia Parkway East Capitol Street Eastern Avenue Florida Avenue Georgia Avenue 7th Street H Streetb Interstate 295-Anacostia Freeway-Kenilworth Avenue Interstate 395 Southeast-Southwest Freeway Interstate 66 K Streetb Laurel Street Loughboro Road M Streetb MacArthur Boulevard Massachusetts Avenue Military Road Missouri Avenue Nebraska Avenue New Hampshire Avenue New York Avenue North Capitol Street Pennsylvania Avenue Rhode Island Avenue South Capitol Street Southern Avenue Suitland Parkway Western Avenue Whitehurst Freeway Wisconsin Avenue
NOTES:
a b

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

5.3.4

Location of electrical power line

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.

5.4 EXEMPT LOCATIONS


The guidelines presented in the preceding chapters apply to the City in general; however, areas with their own regulations are exempt from these requirements or portions thereof, which will be overridden by the area-specific regulations. These exempt locations include, but are not be limited to: 1. Downtown streetscape area 2. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) 3. Monumental Core area The Downtown Streetscape Regulations dictates the standard streetlight fixtures for the Downtown Streetscape Area. The upright poles No. 16, 18, and Twin 20 are used for midblock and pendant poles for intersections. The regulation specifies the color of the pole as black for upright poles and battleship gray for pendant poles. The arm of a Twin 20 pole should be parallel to the curb. The Downtown Streetscape Area boundaries are as shown in the Figure 12.

March 2005

36

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

M St. 15th St. 15th St.


Pe n ns yl v ania Ave

North Capitol St. North Capitol St.

K St.

M as s ach us e t ts

rd 3rd St.

Ave

2nd St.

H St. Ma ss a chu set ts A ve


N Ne w e e e nu Ave rs e y St. Je rs 1st St. 1
s ia ui Lo

D St.
e Av

C St.

Constitution Ave

na

Legend Streetscape Impact Area Boundaries

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.

5.5 HARDWARE RECOMMENDATIONS


Hardware recommendations have been derived for the following scenarios: 1. Non-historic streets Underground power line Overhead power line 2. Historic streets 3. Special streets The hardware recommendations for these scenarios are described in the following paragraphs.

March 2005

37

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Lighting Hardware Type Cobrahead (5A) Cobrahead

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

Wall packs for vehicular Tunnels f Upright for pedestrian tunnels

Citizens are to choose from available choices (text in bold is preferred choice)

Cutoff Criteria

Full Cutoff or Cutoff

Color of Pole Gray Gray Gray Gray

Gray

To be selected based on Bridge Design

N/A

Preferred Orientation Staggered Staggered Opposite Staggered

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Lighting Hardware Type

Decorative Teardrop (Alt. a Cobrahead )

Cutoff Criteria

Full Cutoff or Cutoff

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

60 ft min (on one side) - all orientations

60 ft min (on one side) - all orientations Depends on Pole Type

Height of Pole

Base of Pole

Material of Pole

Depends on the prevailing technology

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Lighting Hardware Type #14, #16, #18 Cobrahead (5A) Cobrahead

#14, #16, b #18, Twin 20

#14, #16, b #18, Twin 20

#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

Cutoff Criteria Black Black

Full Cutoff or Cutoff

Full Cutoff or Cutoff

Full Cutoff or Cutoff

Color of Pole

Black

Full Cutoff or Cutoff Depends on Bridge Design Opposite Staggered Staggered

Existing color

Preferred Orientation Staggered Staggered

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Only lighting arm is to be used

Cutoff Criteria

Color of Arm Staggered Staggered

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

Existing color Staggered chosen because of uniformity of light

Min Spacing between b Poles N/A Depends on Pole Type N/A

60 ft min (on one side) all orientations

N/A

Height of Pole

N/A

Base of Pole Depends on Pole Type N/A

N/A

Material of Pole N/A

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

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Twin 20s are DC signature poles and aesthetically more pleasing

Cutoff Criteria

Full Cutoff or Cutoff

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

Opposite may be aesthetically more pleasing N/A N/A N/A N/A

Min Spacing between Polesa

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

Full Cutoff or Cutoff

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

60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations

Height of Pole

Base of Pole

Material of Pole

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

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

COBRAHEAD

5A ALLEY POST

TEARDROP

Figure 14. Types of Pendant Poles for Use in DC (Cobrahead, 5A Alley Post and Teardrop)

5.6 DESIGN PRINCIPLES


The following design principles should be observed during any streetlight design process and are made part of the policy: 1. The design must be based on AASHTO recommendations for the average maintained illuminance levels for the various roadway classifications defined by DDOT (Table 23). Table 24 presents the required average maintained illumination levels for illuminated sidewalk areas, along all DDOT roadway classifications, with the criteria based on the type of land use. Table 25 presents the criteria for required uniformity and veiling luminance ratios.

March 2005

46

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

Table 23. Recommended Average Maintained Illuminance for District Roadways13


DC Street Classification Interstate Land Use Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Residential Intermediate Commercial Recommended Average Maintained Illuminance (foot-candle) R1 R2 & R3 R4 0.6 to 0.7 0.6 to 0.7 0.6 to 0.7 0.7 to 0.9 0.7 to 0.9 0.7 to 0.9 0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 1.1 0.7 to 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5

Other freeways and Expressway Principal Arterials

Minor Arterial

Collector

Local Street

Alleys

Table 24. Recommended Average Maintained Illuminance for Sidewalks


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

Table 25. Recommended Average-to-Minimum Uniformity and Veiling Luminance 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 Veiling Luminance Ratio 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.3:1 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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.

5.7 DESIGN EXAMPLES


A simplified streetlight design, based on this policy, for North Capitol Street and Michigan Avenue/Columbia Road is illustrated in Figure 15. The entire North Capitol Street segment shown belongs to the Special Street category. On the other hand, Michigan Avenue/ Columbia Road is a minor arterial that changes from Non-historic to Historic and back to Non-historic. In the figure below, the Existing refers to the existing condition and Proposed refers to the design as per this streetlight policy guideline.

March 2005

48

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

HISTO RIC STREET Characteristics


Pole T yp e: Spacing: Color: Lamp: Pole Orientation:

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

NO N-HIST RIC STREET O Characteristics Existing


No. 16, Cobra head 50 100 ft Gray 250 W H PS in No.16, 400W HPS in Cobra head Staggered

Proposed
No. 16 j To be deter mined Gray 250 W MH l l Staggered

Pole Orientation:

Historic District

SPECIAL STREET ( Entire Segment) Characteristics


Pole T yp e: Spacing: Color: Lamp: Pole Ori entation:

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Final Report

NO N-HIST RIC STREET O Characteristics


Pole T yp e: l Spacing: Color: Lamp: l

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

SPECIAL STREET ( Entire Segment) Characteristics


Pole T yp e: Spacing: Color: Lamp: Pole Ori entation:

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

Pole Ori entation:

HISTO RIC STREET Characteristics


Pole T yp e: Spacing: Color: Lamp: Pole Orientation:

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

Legend Cathedral Ave. 28 th ST. Non-Historic Historic


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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH SUMMARY

March 2005

52

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

A.2. MARKET REVIEWS


A.2.1 VENDOR INTERVIEWS
The Study Team interviewed a number of vendors to explore the different types of current and upcoming technologies offered by them, and to learn about their opinions on the existing systems, advantages and disadvantages of different technologies, etc. HADCO, Traffic System and Technology (representing Union Metal and others), HOLOPHANE and Commercial Lighting Sales Inc. (representing Spring City, Valmont, and General Electrics) are among the vendors that supply different streetlighting components to DC. The summaries are as follows: HADCO supplies plastic globes, such as acrylic, fixtures, and poles up to 20 feet, with base and casing. They manufacture a high performance post top refractive globe that produces greater illumination, higher light levels and better uniformity, while reducing glare and energy costs. This refractive globe costs less to purchase and maintain than the popular Cobrahead. HADCO also supplies aluminum and plastic bases. The plastic base is made of polyethylene that will not break, does not need to be painted, is durable even in the harshest environments, withstands high impacts, is ultra-violate (UV) resistant, and is safe against shock hazard and corrosion resistant. HADCO recommended that a Type V globe non-cutoff is a good alternative to existing plain globes. Traffic System and Technology represents Union Metal and others. Union Metal supplies octaflute Pendant Post that has a height of 28, 38 and 80 feet. It offers a prefabricated foundation that is hydraulically driven into the ground, LED light, Acorn globes and induction lights. Induction lamps have a long life (100,000 hours); however, the ballast doesnt last long, and therefore, the failure rate is very high. HOLOPHANE supplies glass and plastic globes, casing and Teardrop fixtures. They also manufacture refractive globes with better control of light. Their design leaves the ballasts under the casing, thus the globes are affected less as it produces less heat. They claim to provide higher ambient temperature specification and a vibration test for the globes. They recommended that a glass globe is a good alternative for the Monumental Core. Commercial Lighting Sales represents manufacturers like Spring City, Valmont, and General Electrics. Spring City offers cast iron poles, luminaires, arms and Teardrop fixtures. Its Type III and V of Columbian Series are available in glass and plastic globes. They have designed a special No. 16 pole with narrow base (17 inches as opposed to 24 inches) to help comply with ADA requirements for narrow sidewalks. They also supply refractive globes and Induction lamp. Valmont supplies their Pendant Post to Commercial Lighting Sales and GE supplies their luminaire and conversion kit.

March 2005

54

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

A.3. OTHER AGENCY PRACTICES


A.3.1 AGENCY INTERVIEWS
The Study Team conducted interviews with other jurisdictions in order to determine the prevailing lighting practices. The questionnaire that was provided to other agencies is presented at the end of this subsection (Section A.3.3). Listed below are a summary of the jurisdictions interviewed and their current lighting practices/standards: City of Indianapolis Ms. Sherry Powell, City of Indianapolis Department of Public Works, was interviewed. Ms. Powell indicated that the City is currently utilizing HPS and MH lighting fixtures. However, the current goal of the City is to convert all fixtures to HPS due to the longer life spans and lower initial costs. The City currently uses wood, aluminum and fiberglass poles. Within the historic districts of the City, refractive globes are used with HPS lighting fixtures. Within the residential areas, Cobrahead lighting poles with HPS lighting fixtures are primarily used. Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) Mr. Charles Rupp from MDSHAs Office of Traffic & Safety was interviewed. Mr. Rupp indicated that MDSHAs policy is to use HPS lighting fixtures in all areas. The primary lighting pole type used within the State is the Cobrahead lighting pole with HPS lighting fixtures with full-cutoff distribution and a Type III lighting pattern to minimize rear spillover light. On bridges within historic areas, refractive lighting globes are occasionally used with HPS fixtures. In addition, along interstate roadways, high mast lighting poles with mounting heights between 100 and 120 feet are also used with 1,000 Watt HPS luminaires with a Type IV lighting pattern. However, Mr. Rupp indicated that high mast poles are currently being used on a lesser scale due to spill over complaints from adjacent residential communities. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Ms. Pamela Brookes, VDOT Headquarters, Richmond, Virginia, was interviewed. Ms. Brookes indicated that VDOTs primary lighting pole and fixture is an offset hinged lighting fixture (Holophanes Vector Pole) with a 250 Watt HPS lighting fixture. However, VDOT is currently utilizing Holophanes Mongoose lighting pole fixture on a greater scale (similar to the Cobrahead lighting pole) that allows for a full cutoff to semi-cutoff lighting distribution to minimize rear spillover lighting. City of Boston Mr. Glen Cooper, City of Boston Department of Public Works, was interviewed. Mr. Cooper indicated that the City uses aluminum, concrete and cast iron lighting poles. The City uses the following poles and lighting fixtures: a rectangular 250 or 400 Watt Mercury Vapor acrylic prismatic fixture on an aluminum post with a 15 inch bracket arm; a rectangular 150, 250 or 400 Watt Mercury Vapor acrylic prismatic fixture on a concrete pole with a 22.5 inch bracket arm; a Boston City Neighborhood Globe (polycarbonate) with a Type III lighting

March 2005

61

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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.

A.3.2 INTERNET RESEARCH


In addition, limited research was conducted on the Internet to determine the lighting practices of other jurisdictions. The following summarizes the findings: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) ODOT uses the Cobrahead lighting fixture as their primary lighting pole along most roadways with a 70 to 400 Watt HPS luminaire. ODOTs lighting guidelines with regards to: minimum point values, average maintained illuminance, average-to-minimum ratios, maximum-to-minimum ratios follow the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting. For interstate roadways, high mast lighting poles are used with HPS fixtures ranging from 400 to 1,000 Watt. For lighted overhead signs, ODOT uses Mercury Vapor lighting fixtures. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) NYSERDA conducted a research study to determine the most cost-efficient lighting methods to be used within the State of New York. Based on a total annualized cost formula that included the initial costs, energy consumption, and maintenance costs over a 20-year period, NYSERDA determined that a 250 Watt HPS luminaire on a sharp cutoff (shoebox type) lighting pole provided the most cost efficient lighting solution. However, the report also indicated that the fair (yellowish) color properties of the HPS luminaire must also be considered in the design. City of Kent, Washington State The City of Kent lighting guidelines provide many lighting criteria that include uniformity ratios and minimum lighting values that are consistent with AASHTO lighting standards. The City of Kent has chosen the following two (2) lighting pole options: HADCO Series 21 and Series 22 Aluminum Streetlight Standards and Mast Arms, or Valmont Series 21 and Series 22 Aluminum Streetlight Standards and Mast Arms. Both of these lighting poles
March 2005 62

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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.

A.3.3 LIGHTING QUESTIONNAIRE


Date ________________________________ City:_________________________________ Point of Contact:________________________ _____________________________________ 1. What are your illumination standards for residential areas, commercial areas, and other areas (if applicable)? If you have specific criteria, please include the following information: i) Average Maintained Illuminance Level (foot-candle) ______________ ii) Average-to-Minimum Ratios ____________________ iii) Maximum-to-Minimum Ratios ___________________ iv) Minimum Point Level Illumination_________________ 1. What lighting type distributions are utilized (e.g. Type 3 cutoff distribution)? _____________________________________________________________ 2. What types of luminaires are utilized in various areas (i.e. High Pressure Sodium, Metal Halide, Mercury Vapor, inductive lamp, etc.)? _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________ What is your experience about them? _____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Any remarks on inductive lamps (if used) __________________________________

March 2005

63

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

A.4. STREETLIGHT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE


DDOT formed a panel of advisors to serve on a committee to steer this study. The committee was formed from members of relevant agencies and citizen groups. 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. In order to help understand the rationales and how some of the requirements were generated in these meetings, the minutes are included in this section.

March 2005

65

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3-10-04


Introductions and Goals Kristina Alg Consistent streetlight policy varying size, type of lights, etc for different types of streets Concern about installation of streetlights Jack McKay Finding a happy medium of lights in Mt. Pleasant Need of guidelines Larry Aurbach Illuminating bridge structures Presentation 1. A number of technical clarification questions concerning watts, location etc. 2. Request for the study to compare the budgets of overhead lines and underground lines. 3. John Deatrick wants recommendations about current ongoing bridgework using standard lighting. 4. Comments were brought about AASHTO standards resulting in lighting being either over lit or under lit. 5. Slide 42 of the presentation need to quantify measures. 6. Recommendation of a lighting control that rely less on PEPCO. 7. Take sidewalk width into consideration when choosing a pole (e.g. pole base No. 14 vs. 16) 8. We need to also consider night pollution and efficiency 9. Concerns about lighting and crime perception in the Historic Anacostia area. 10. Consider pole color/type. 11. Understanding of current conditions is needed to gain an idea of variations of illuminants. 12. How do we market guidelines/get info to the public? Action Items 1. Mike Dorsey and Jama Abdi will create a drive-through tour of lighting types. This tour will occur during a date and time, TBD in March. Advisory Committee members can participate in this tour or go out on their own. 2. Colleen Smith Hawkinson will email light routes (to include Barracks Row and street specifications such as width and type) for those who are interested in touring independent of the group. 3. Samira Cook will create a matrix using the suggested characteristics (see evaluation criteria and preliminary sample chart below)

March 2005

66

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

MINUTES OF THE MEETING AND THE FIELD TRIP HELD ON 3-24-04


Meeting 1. Discussion about the AASHTO standards minimum resulting in lighting being overlit. 2. We need light on the pavement and the light above the luminaire is not generally desired. Very little light is directed on the ground while most of the light is wasted sideward and upward. 3. Recommended the poles to be placed uniformly for uniform distribution of light. 4. As cost is a major issue, what is the cost difference between the glass, plastic and refractive globes? 5. HPS (approximately 5-6 years) has a long life compared to Incandescent (approximately 6 months) and MH (approximately 3 years). 6. 14N predominant in Georgetown. Mostly No.16 is used in other areas. 7. Cobraheads or Pendant poles are generally used for signals and walk signs. 8. A narrow base that is used to fit on a narrow sidewalk may look very disproportional. 9. An area with a high crime rate can change and also the technology may change with the passing of time. Field Trip 1. Mike Dorsey and Jama Abdi took the Advisory Committee members for a tour of lighting types. 2. MH is used in Monumental Core (National Park Service regulation). 3. The 150 Watt HPS refractive/prismatic globe is better lit than 250 Watt HPS regular globe. 4. Spring City, HADCO and HOLOPHANE refractive/prismatic globes are on Pennsylvania Avenue for a demonstration. The prismatic globe casts a bright band on the adjacent building but the pavement is better lit. 5. The 400 Watt MH and 400 Watt Mercury Vapor have the same brightness. 6. The light level on the sidewalk on M Street, SE across from Navy Yard under an upright (No. 18) pole with standard Washington Globe and Twin-20 was almost the same. 7. Should the matrix include light levels (for upright, Pendant, Twin-20 and other commonly used poles for commonly used wattage) on sidewalks and between the poles at the same distance from the pole or curb and at the centerline of the street? It should be recorded where the lamps are in their life cycle, i.e. newly installed, mid life or end life.

March 2005

68

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4-14-04


A Streetlight Advisory Committee Meeting was held in Conference room, 6th Floor, District Department of Transportation on 4-14-04. The minutes of the meeting are as follows. Summary 1. Ken Laden started off the meeting at 10:05 a.m. He briefly summarized the scope of the project. He mentioned that DCI is the consultant working on the project and will look into different jurisdictions streetlight standards and come up with recommendations for DC. 2. Colleen Hawkinson stated that it was the second Streetlight Advisory Committee Meeting that was being held. She mentioned that a field trip was made on March 24th in DC and the participants were able to see different types of lights and luminaires, and take the light readings. She also pointed out that the recommendations are going to be a range of lighting standards (i.e., 2-3 types of poles, different illumination levels, etc.) rather than a single given standard. She said that a draft for this project would be presented to the Committee around the middle or end of May and will be distributed to the Committee. Public Meetings are also going to be held and the resulting feedback will be incorporated in the Final Draft, which will be completed in early July. It will include a presentation to Fine Arts Commission. 3. Larry Green presented the task status and the updated comparison tables. He mentioned that a range of illumination levels for various road classifications would be recommended. He showed figures for a typical average illumination field survey procedure, various lighting types, poles and other fixtures. A focus group is going to be formed to discuss the AASHTO Standards, lower and upper lighting illumination limits, and the new technologies. He also spoke about the typical colors that are used for poles, DC typically uses black (27038) and gray (16099), Golden Triangle BID requires black (27038) and the National Park Services mostly use black. 4. During the course of the presentation, several items were discussed or suggested: The prismatic acrylic globe reduces the wattage requirement to provide the same level of illumination, because the light is directional, and therefore, a fewer number of shorter poles can be used. Also, it does not cause uplights and subsequent light pollution. The committee wanted to know the benefits of glass over plastic globes, a case study where glass globes are being used and the lifetime cost of the globes. The group was also interested to know the list of places where prismatic globes are used in Baltimore. It was suggested that the height of the building and the poles needed to be considered in the design of streetlights. The policy should include a range of illumination standards, as the AASHTO standards may appear to be too bright for some neighborhoods. The range of levels will allow a community to have too bright light if they want and vice versa. There was a suggestion to look into the uniformity of the light distribution on the road, along with the illumination levels. It was mentioned that the prismatic globes will not help with the uniformity and it would still depend on the pole

March 2005

69

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4-28-04


A Streetlight Advisory Committee Meeting was held in the Conference room, 6th Floor, District Department of Transportation on 4-28-04. The minutes of the meeting are as follows. Summary 1. Colleen Hawkinson started off the meeting at 10:15 a.m. She mentioned that the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Evaluation Matrix framework. 2. Manzur Elahi presented the Evaluation Matrix framework. An evaluation framework was developed for the evaluation of several streetlighting elements, as listed below: o Lamp alternatives o Globe alternatives o Shielding/Cutoff alternatives o Pole alternatives A set of matrices had been developed for evaluating various alternatives. Also, a set of contexts had been identified for evaluation of items under possible scenarios. The objective of this evaluation was to gain knowledge of the collective preference of the Streetlight Advisory Committee. This framework will be used to compare various alternatives; however, it will be used as a general guide and multiple candidate alternatives will be selected. 3. The following table presents the Advisory Committee input to identify evaluation criteria for the streetlight policy from the two previous meetings. The identified criteria were examined to see whether they are quantifiable and how they fit in the evaluation framework. A few of them were quantifiable, others were contexts rather than criteria for evaluation and several others were design issues.
Criterions Suggested by Advisory Committee
Criteria Suggested by Advisory Committee Efficiency Comment Need to be presented as identifiable items, such as: a) life duration, b) power consumption, c) light output/ distribution, etc. Applies only to structural element Applicable only for lamp/luminaire Applicable only for lamp/luminaire 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. Way to Quantify Subjective rating (1-10)

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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.

Way to Quantify N/A

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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.

Quantifiable evaluation criteria


Evaluation Criteria Lamp Alternatives (HPS, Metal Halide, Inductive, etc.) the YES YES YES YES Applicable Criteria for Each Item Globe Shielding Alternatives Alternatives (Plain, (Cutoff, semiprismatic) cutoff, full cutoff) Pole Alternatives

Efficiency (based on following, as applicable)

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

-YES -YES YES

YES -YES YES YES

YES -YES YES YES

YES --YES YES

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

Context applicability to each item


Context List Lamp Alternatives (HPS, Metal Halide, Inductive, etc.) Context Applicability to Each Item Globe Alternatives (Plain, Shielding Alternatives prismatic) (Cutoff, semi-cutoff, full cutoff) Interstate/Other Freeway & Expressway and Alley Predetermined Others - Independent Commercial and Intermediate/ Residential Changes Pole Alternatives

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

Gateway To be determined Others Independent Tunnel/Underpass N/A

All - Independent

1. All Inclusive (General) Special Type N/A 2. Special Type - Gateway

1. Commercial 2. Intermediate/ Residential

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

* Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.

March 2005

75

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

* Rating 1-10, 10 being most preferred.

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

Efficiency (based on following, as applicable)

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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.

Candidate Alternative Rating* Plain Prismatic Plain with shielding 8 8 8 8 2 9 8 0 8

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

Efficiency (based on following, as applicable)

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

Evaluation Criteria

Weight (w)

Candidate Alternative Rating* Upright Twin- Pendant Teardrop Poles 20 Pole

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

10. Larry Aurbach suggested including Brightness as a criterion.

March 2005

79

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5-5-04


A Streetlight Advisory Committee Meeting was held in the Conference room, 5th Floor, District Department of Transportation on 5-5-04. The minutes of the meeting are as follows. Summary 1. Colleen Hawkinson started off the meeting at 10:15 a.m. She mentioned that the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Evaluation Matrix. 2. The committee recommended the same matrix to be used for 3 different scenarios: (1) Historic, (2) Non Historic, and (3) Special Street (may change) 3. It was brought to notice that the Special Street supersedes Historic Street that means, all Historic Streets are not Special but all Special Streets are Historic. 4. Need to consider Alley [in row], and color of pole, material of pole and placement (staggered, one sided, etc) 5. It will be assumed that prismatic globes (vs. standard/plain globes) are used for upright poles. This will help address the glare issues and prismatic globe fixtures guide light onto the sidewalks and street rather than into the sky. 6. The committee was interested to see some pictures of the luminaries, fixtures and poles from the vendors catalogue to have a visual understanding of different types of poles. These catalogues will be made available at the next meeting. Samples may be found on the Holophane and Spring City websites. 7. Generally Upright poles are used for the mid-block and Pendant poles for the intersections. For the intersection, the committee recommended No. 16, No. 18 and Twin-20 needs to be evaluated first (whether they are in compliance with all the signal standards) before considering the Pendant pole, so that the consistency can be maintained with the midblock. If none of the Upright poles are in compliance then a decorative Pendant pole (for e.g.: Teardrop) that is aesthetically pleasing can be used. 8. The approximate cost of a Cobrahead is $200 and a Teardrop is $500-$600. 9. The Committee was interested to see the results/output for a standard globe vs. prismatic globe vs. Pendant pole for a certain roadway width and sidewalk width. 10. For Special Streets, the type of pole should remain consistent, however communities should have a say on the pole spacing and wattage. 11. It was mentioned that the spacing between the poles will depend on the placement (staggered, one sided, opposite, etc). This placement is dependent on existing underground or overhead infrastructure and other factors such as trees, fire hydrants, utilities, etc. 12. For the Special Street Scenario, the Committee is leaning toward Twin-20 and decorative Pendant poles for the pole type of a Commercial Area. The minimum spacing between the poles for a staggered placement was suggested as 60 feet for a Commercial area and Special Street Scenario. It was recommended that for any utility problem for placing a pole at distance of 60 feet, not to go lower but can go higher than 60 feet. This cannot be done always as this raises an issue for uniform

March 2005

82

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5-13-04


A Streetlight Advisory Committee Meeting was held in the Conference room, 6th Floor, Reeves Center on 5-13-04. The minutes of the meeting are as follows. Summary 1. Colleen Hawkinson started off the meeting at 10:15 a.m. 2. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss and come to a consensus about the Evaluation Matrices. The consultant presented four Evaluation Matrices for Special Streets (NHS & Gateways), Historic Areas/Streets, Non-Historic for Overhead and Underground Power lines. The Committees input from earlier meetings and also the consultants recommendations were incorporated in the presented Matrices. 3. The following Matrix was presented to the Committee for the Non-Historic Streets with Underground Powerlines. The bolded options are the Consultants recommendation and depend on Committee to decide which option to choose. Presented DRAFT Matrix for Non-Historic Streets (with Underground Powerlines)
Intermediate (Mixed Use) Cobra Head, Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18 Tunnels/ Underpasses Wall packs

Criteria

Commercial

Residential

Bridges

Alley

Comments

Pole Type

Cobra Head, Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18

Cobra Head, Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18

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

N/A N/A N/A

Grey

Grey

N/A N/A

- Currently used

Depends on the prevailing technology Staggered Staggered Staggered Opposite Staggered

Preferred Orientation

N/A

-Staggered chosen because of uniformity - Opposite for bridge for aesthetics/symmetry

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

Commercial Dec. Tear Drop, #14, #16, #18

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

Alley Cobra Head (5A)

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

Full Cutoff / Cutoff

Full Cutoff / Cutoff

Full Cutoff / Cutoff

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)

Depends on the prevailing technology

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

Presented DRAFT Matrix for Non-Historic Streets (with Overhead Powerlines)


Intermediate (Mixed Use) Full Cutoff: Cobra Head, Alt: Dec. Tear Drop 60 ft, min (on one side) - all orientations Tunnels/ Underpasses

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

- Only lighting arm is to be used

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - Currently being used

Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey Grey

N/A N/A

Depends on the prevailing technology Staggered Staggered Staggered Staggered

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

Intermediate (Mixed Use)

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

Dec. Tear Drop

Dec. Tear Drop

Cobra Head (5A)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

- Only lighting arm is to be used

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

Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey

N/A N/A

- Currently being used

Depends on the prevailing technology Staggered Staggered Staggered Staggered

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

Presented DRAFT Matrix for Historic Areas/Streets


Criteria Intermediate Residential Bridges Alley (Mixed Use) #14, #16, #18, Twin #14, #16, #18, Twin #14, #16, #18, Twin #14, #16, #18, Cobra Head (?) 20 20 20 Twin 20 Commercial Tunnels/ Underpasses N/A Comments - Currently used for historic areas. - Truly historical to DC - Aesthetically more pleasing

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

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

Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey Grey

N/A N/A N/A -Existing color N/A Staggered N/A

Depends on the prevailing technology Staggered Staggered Opposite

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

Revised Matrix for Historic Areas/Streets


Intermediate (Mixed Use) Tunnels/ Underpasses N/A

Criteria

Commercial

Residential

Bridges

Alley

Comments

#14, #16, #18, Twin #14, #16, #18, Twin #14, #16, #18 20** 20**

#14, #16, #18, Twin Cobra Head (5A) 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

N/A N/A N/A -Existing color N/A Staggered N/A

Depends on the prevailing technology Staggered Staggered Staggered Opposite

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

Presented DRAFT Matrix for Special Street (Gateways and NHS)


Criteria Pole Type Intermediate Residential (Mixed Use) Twin 20**, Twin 20, Twin 20, Alt: Decorative Tear Alt: Decorative Tear Alt: Decorative Tear Drop Drop Drop 60 ft, min (on one side) - 60 ft, min (on one side) - 60 ft, min (on one side) all orientations all orientations all orientations Commercial Depends on Pole Type Depends on Pole Type Grey Grey Grey Bridges Twin 20, Alt: Decorative Tear Drop 60 ft, min (on one side) all orientations Tunnels/ Underpasses Comments N/A - Twin 20s are DC signature poles -Aesthetically more pleasing

Minimum Spacing btw poles Height of pole Base of pole Color of Grey pole Material of pole Preferred Opposite Orientation

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - DC Grey is DC Signature

Depends on the prevailing technology Opposite Opposite Opposite

N/A

- Opposite may be aesthetically more pleasing

** Committee can decide

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

N/A N/A N/A

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

Depends on the prevailing technology Opposite Opposite Opposite

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5-19-04


A Streetlight Advisory Committee Meeting was held in the Conference room, 6th Floor, Reeves Center on 5-19-04. The minutes of the meeting are as follows. Summary 1. Colleen Hawkinson started off the meeting at 10:15 a.m. She mentioned that it was the last SAC Meeting and the Committee should give their final opinion about the evaluation matrices and what needs to be included in the Policy. The Draft Streetlight Grand Plan will be completed and distributed to the Committee by June 11. After all the comments from the Committee are incorporated in the document, it will be presented to the Fine Arts Commission, NCPC, ANCs and the other members of DDOT. 2. Mike Dorsey showed several samples of colors that are generally used in DC streetlight poles. They were Bridge Green color (# 140020) currently being used on Key Bridge, Gray (#16099) and Black. DDOT prefers least number of colors for the ease of maintenance. The poles in the District are painted every 7 years. The recommended colors will be used for the new contracts. The Committee came to a consensus about the following color considerations: The poles on the Bridge should be based on existing color and bridge color The color should be the same for the Uprights and the Pendant poles The color should be same for the Traffic Signal and the Streetlight poles Black color should be used for Gateways and historic (for overhead and underground) Non-historic will have gray color 3. Special Streets have been defined as the following. Historic Districts/Streets and National Highway System Streets. Elizabeth Miller proposed streets that fall within the LEnfant Plan for inclusion. Elizabeth mentioned that she would double check with Office of Planning for different streets that are Special. A list of Special streets is attached. 4. With regards to the minimum spacing between the poles, the Committee asked the consultant to include a footnote stating that 60 feet is not a recommended minimum, but it is an absolute minimum. The Committee also suggested the inclusion of an explanation of how spacing would be determined. 5. When more than one pole is recommended for any scenario, a pole that meets the following criterion and also the AASHTO standards should be chosen. Minimum number of poles Lowest acceptable wattage Maximum Spacing Height of the pole (based on context like height of the building, roadway width, sidewalk width, etc)

March 2005

91

District of Columbia Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines

Appendix A: Research Summary

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