JDB Engineering, Inc.

Fully-integrated engineering solutions for systems and buildings; Engineering with Creativity...Leadership by Design

You are here: Home / Archives for Scott Butcher

Pedestrian Lighting: Turning Requirements into a Plan

by Craig G. Malesic, LC, PMP, EIT

In the first two installments of this three-part series, we reviewed why the project was initiated and how we established the required lighting levels. In this final installment, we will look at “How to Bake the Cake” now that we have all of the “Ingredients.”

The next step is to choose the type(s) of luminaires (more commonly referred to as lighting fixtures). This step is primarily related to look, style, and relative size of the lighting equipment, and less related to the lighting performance (meaning the way the illumination exits the luminaire). For this campus lighting project, we decided to utilize a decorative pole luminaire, with the following two options considered:

Pedestrian Lighting OptionsOption 1 matched the campus standard for pole-mounted lighting while Option 2 matched the installed lighting in the adjacent municipality that would run contiguous to this project. The stakeholders needed to decide if this residential neighborhood was to look like an extension of the college campus (Option 1) or an extension of the adjacent municipality (Option 2).

Ultimately, it was decided to match the campus standard, with an option (bid alternate) to install Option 2 on a single street to continue the adjacent municipality’s look.

Once the look and feel of the lighting was chosen and agreed upon, the optics and lumen output was selected. The illumination criteria set earlier helped establish the requirements for height, spacing, lumen output, and lighting distribution type. A photometric model was created to evaluate the foot candles of the horizontal plane measurement at the ground as well as the vertical foot candles measured three feet above finished grade. The vertical foot candles were evaluated in both directions to simulate a pedestrian walking towards the light source or away from the light source.

New lighting was proposed to be installed on all of the streets within the project scope, with the pole-top fixtures mounted on 12-foot poles. The selected lighting fixtures are Type III fixtures with pole type, color, and bases chosen to match the existing campus standard. The proposed alternate matched the municipality-standard lighting fixtures along the contiguous street. This modification allowed for a match between the existing installed street lighting with the lighting installed to the north of Campus.

The lighting layout provided fixtures on both sides of the streets in a staggered pattern.

Lighting on the same side of the street is placed at approximately 100-foot intervals, with lighting on the opposite side of the street placed at the midpoint to create the best balance of lighting. All lighting is positioned and designed to avoid glare going through the windows of the homes in the neighborhood. All lighting is owned and maintained privately. Our design layout is generic and does not account for plantings, private walks, and utilities. Specific lighting layouts will take these obstacles into account with the assistance of a civil engineer and a formal survey. This will take place during the Construction Documents phase of the project.

Pedestrian Lighting Layout
This generic layout shows the differences between two common types of lighting distribution. Type V sends light out in all directions, which has the potential to allow light to enter resident windows. The proposed Type III lighting allows the light to be directed forward and to the sides, providing light where needed and protecting residences from light trespass.

Wiring was designed to be run underground in PVC schedule 40 conduit, with conductors sized to avoid voltage drop. Lighting fixtures will be mounted on rebar-reinforced concrete pole bases installed flush to finished grade. The lighting will be fed from pedestal-mounted, utility-approved meter bases with integrated electrical panels. A total of three services will be installed to support the installation. This set-up requires a responsible party to pay a utility electrical bill for energy used.

Existing cobra head lighting in the area will remain to illuminate roadway intersections, although we recommended new LED fixtures with better optics. This will reduce the disability glare that is currently present and will aid in security illumination. All cobra head lighting modifications will be provided, installed, metered, and maintained by the electrical utility as per existing municipal agreements.

All new lighting, conduit, and meter base pedestals will be installed within the existing right-of-way.

Through this three-blog series I’ve attempted to illustrate the process followed by professional lighting designers, from the initial design concepts through the nuts and bolts of working to evolve the design vision to constructed reality. As mentioned in the lighting trends post, lighting design is becoming a highly-specialized profession, which is hopefully demonstrated through this case study. Have a need for professional lighting, whether exterior sits or building interiors? Contact JDB Illumination and reach out to me at cmalesic@jdbe.com or 717-434-1558.

As for the campus pedestrian lighting project, it is ongoing, with the next step involving the comprehensive lighting plan working its way through the various approval processes.

Connect with Craig

You Might Also Like

Utility Matrix: Utilization for Manufacturing Processes

by Timothy A. Warren, PE, LEED AP

Process PipingDuring the planning stages of a new process line installation, upgrade, or modification project there are myriad items that need to be considered. Utilities are essential to bring the manufacturing process to life, and should be included early in the thought process. Utilities such as power, compressed air, tempered (hot/cold) water, and gases, among others, are examples of what the facility’s infrastructure must provide to support the manufacturing process.

When considering utility requirements for a project, the following baseline items must be determined:

  • Does the facility’s infrastructure already have every required utility for the process?
  • Does each utility serve other areas/process lines in the facility?
  • Are the current demands of each utility known, and how much spare capacity is available for each?
  • Is there adequate spare utility capacity to accommodate the new process line?

While the first two are relatively easy to answer and plan for, the third and fourth bullets are ones that often have the potential to expand the scope and cost of a project well beyond a new process line installation. Since this post assumes that each facility engineering manager has his/her arms around the current utility demands of the facility (even though I know that’s often not necessarily the case), I’ll disregard the third bullet for now to focus on the fourth bullet: Is there adequate utility capacity to accommodate a new process line? This is a critical question, because the need to add to the existing utility systems’ capacity and distribution often have a snowball effect. For example, if the facility will need additional chilled water to support the new process, several questions will have to be asked, answered, and addressed before the project can move forward. These include:

  • Is there enough space in the mechanical room?
  • Is there enough area on the roof for the added equipment?
  • Is there enough power for the added equipment – and is it local?
  • Do the existing chilled water pumps have enough capacity?
  • Are the existing distribution piping mains large enough?
  • Can the floor and/or roof handle the additional loads to support equipment and distribution?

As you can see, each utility system can significantly impact the project. Process equipment utility demands published by the manufacturer are often for the most extreme condition, such as the highest, full-load throughput. Furthermore, there are often multiple pieces of equipment that constitute a process line, with each piece utilizing multiple utilities. Unfortunately, there is rarely any distinction whether the multiple pieces of equipment will use the utilities simultaneously, much less for the required duration of use.

For example, consider a line comprising three pieces of equipment that each use chilled water, as follows:

  • Equipment Piece A is listed to require 200 gpm of chilled water flow
  • Equipment Piece B is listed to require 100 gpm of chilled water flow
  • Equipment Piece C is listed to require 100 gpm of chilled water flow

If I were to take this information at face value, I would conclude that a total of 400 gpm is required, which could equal a 167-ton chilled water load to the central plant, based on a 10-degree temperature difference. That is a sizable load that could potentially push the project into central plant upgrades. However, if I ask more questions to get a better understanding of the use of chilled water for each piece of equipment, I may draw a different conclusion. These questions include:

  • Does each piece use the stated flow continuously?
  • Do all pieces use it simultaneously or is it staged?
  • How long does each piece use the chilled water?
  • What is the temperature change for each piece?

I may find that the chilled water is not used simultaneously and staged among the three pieces of equipment. Or, I may find the listed flowrate is the absolute maximum, but the equipment will only utilize 60% of the maximum flowrate because the Owner will operate this process line at a throughput that is 60% of the maximum operating rate. I may also determine that the water temperature change across the equipment is very low (indicating lower overall capacity used), or that the flow control valve is fully opened for the first ten minutes of an hour, but then starts to close as the required cooling is reduced to a 20% minimum for the remainder of the hour. All of these could greatly impact the determination of the overall chilled water demand for the new process line. This is referred to as utilization, and is paramount to determining the actual utility requirements for a process line and the impact they may – or may not – have on the utility infrastructure systems. Therefore, a thorough evaluation should be completed as early as possible during the planning stages of the project.

Utility Matrix

A common tool used to summarize utility requirements is a Utility Matrix. A Utility Matrix can take many forms, but usually is presented in a spreadsheet listing all the pieces of process equipment in horizontal rows with the corresponding utility information in columns. Here is a portion of a Utility Matrix that illustrates a summary for chilled water:

Utility MatrixA column descriptor is included for all pertinent design information. The capacity is indicated as BTU/HR. Note the two yellow highlighted columns. The utilization factor can be determined after asking and answering questions similar to those previously stated above, and then used to correct to the actual anticipated capacity needed for each piece of equipment. Make no mistake, these questions are often difficult to answer and typically take a lot of digging. Furthermore, running down the right technical personnel from the equipment manufacturers (the folks that design it) is often necessary to find the needed answers. It’s worth the effort, however, because the resulting corrected total is a more accurate representation of the total utility capacity required. Each utility, such as power, compressed air, steam, etc., should be represented and totaled in a similar manner. Once this matrix is completed for each utility, you will have clearer picture of the impact on the facility’s infrastructure systems (assuming you know the baseline use for each utility prior to the project) and can feel more confident about the scope and budget with respect to this aspect of the project.

Questions about process utilities or determining utility capacity? Reach out to me at 717-434-1566 or twarren@jdbe.com. You can also contact Jeffrey W. Pauley, PE, vice president and champion of JDB Industry at 717-434-1560 or jpauley@jdbe.com.

Connect with Tim

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-warren-92098713/

You Might Also Like

Safety & Good Manufacturing Processes

Modeling Pneumatic Conveying Systems for Accuracy

Explosion Detection for Dust Collectors

Trying to Reduce Energy Consumption in Your Plant?

Lighting Trends: Everything is Changing, But Not Everyone is Keeping Up

Lighting Trends

By Craig G. Malesic, LC, PMP, EIT and Thomas G. Schubert, PE

It’s an exciting time to be a lighting design professional. Innovation is rampant, building codes increasingly recognize the importance of lighting, and the sophistication of lighting and controls systems is at an all-time high. But this innovation is also creating several challenges. Here are some of the overarching lighting trends we’re seeing right now:

Lighting Design is Becoming a Specialized, Unique Profession – There are several adjacent professions that dabble in lighting design: architecture, interior design, electrical engineering. In fact, for decades it has been common to have electrical engineers serve as lighting designers. And that made sense when most commercial lighting applications consisted of basic 2, 3, or 4-foot tubes in simple grid formation. But times have changed! Likewise, architects and interior designers often have a very defined vision for a space, and to realize that vision, they prefer to be involved with the selection of lighting fixtures.

Problems arise, however, when you look at the breadth of knowledge and capabilities required from a lighting design professional:

  • Energy Codes
  • Egress Lighting that Blends in with the Architecture
  • Photometrics (Code and Recommended Levels)
  • How Emergency Lighting is Powered
  • Controls (Code and Good Design)
  • Aesthetics

We were recently commissioned to provide electrical engineering for a project. A third-party lighting designer was hired by the architect. They selected very attractive lighting fixtures for the lobby that aligned with the architect’s vision for the space. Unfortunately, the lighting design was more an exercise in fixture selection than full-service lighting consulting. Codes were not reviewed and egress calculations not performed, and it turned out that the specified fixtures were unacceptable. The only way to keep them was to add additional emergency lighting, totally altering the architect’s vision for the space.

We often see lighting selections made without regard to energy use, controls (not just lighting controls, but also building control systems), code requirements, and other critical factors.

The “Why” of Lighting Controls is Being Ignored – There are incredibly sophisticated lighting control systems available today, and they are frequently incorporated into projects. However, these control systems are often too complex for end-users, and if the controls were never properly commissioned, they can be useless. Lighting controls can add unnecessary layers of complexity and cost, with a negative ROI. Lighting design professionals need to effectively lead their clients through early project conversations about their real lighting needs, benefits of lighting control systems, and the impacts on users. If lighting control systems are incorporated into the project, they must be commissioned to meet the intent of the lighting design – which is really based upon the needs of the users. One of the mitigating factors driving this trend are the newer energy conservation codes, which are becoming more restrictive, sometimes even creating the need for a product that doesn’t even exist yet!

The Drive Toward Single-Source Lighting & Control is Limiting Options – The top lighting fixture manufacturers are often the top lighting controls manufacturers, and when you begin moving forward with their lighting product, you’re often forced into their lighting controls product. Manufacturers are creating closed ecosystems, in turn creating fewer options for lighting designers and ultimately hurting owners and end-users. In many instances, using a lighting fixture from Manufacturer A and a controls system from Manufacturer B is not an option (or at least difficult). This closed ecosystem approach has also become common in some technology realms, but it penalizes consumers and limits creativity. In lighting, there’s a lot of seemingly good options out there that simply aren’t good enough because of these ecosystem limitations. There are, however, some smaller lighting fixture manufactures whose products “play nice” with the larger lighting controls companies, potentially driving lighting designers toward these smaller manufacturers to enhance creative freedom.

Occupancy & Vacancy Sensors Have a Role, But Are They Really Needed on Every Fixture? – The quest for incorporating occupancy or vacancy sensors has a foundation in sound sustainable design principals and is often required by code. However, it doesn’t make sense for every lighting fixture to have a sensor. In fact, the value-add simply isn’t there yet for most spaces. This approach also eliminates some of the aesthetic of a lighting fixture. The typical argument is that it is less expensive due to installation cost. The benefits to the HVAC system are promoted, but are often not needed or wanted by the HVAC designers. This concept will ultimately find a place, but is currently not needed in 90%+ of projects.

Solutions in Search of a Problem – Some lighting manufacturers are working to solve problems that don’t exist, or responding to potential code changes that don’t actually make sense. Again, control systems are getting too complex for end-users, so buildings with extensive lighting controls are being designed and constructed, and yet the lighting controls are never used. Ultimately, this again hits the owner in the pocketbook, requiring more in upfront costs for technology that will never be used. The lighting industry – manufacturers, designers, installers – should be looking to make things more simple for the end-users, not more complex. Innovation is important and pushing the envelope helps create the technology of tomorrow. It is a lighting designer’s job to make sure that the system is “Right Sized” with thoughts toward the future. We need to give the occupants solutions of true value, not just advanced technology.

Lighting Control Commissioning is Critical, But Being Handled the Wrong Way – Most lighting controls manufacturers do not have the ability to commission their projects due to geographic challenges and time constraints. The solution is to push it down to the manufacturers’ representatives. These reps are highly trained in how their particular system works and can be programmed, but they rarely understand the vision for the space or the intent of the lighting designer. The main problem is that many designers are shunning this responsibility, because their contracts don’t include commissioning. Ideally, designers should be commissioning these systems because the design intent is exceedingly difficult to put onto paper. You have to see it in person and be able to fine tune it and lock it in. For instance, on a recent entertainment project, the construction manager called to say “There are not enough lights in the lobby.” Certainly this is a subjective opinion; however, the very well-lit lobby was not intended to be the brightest area within the space. A nearby ticketing area was more important, and the variances in illumination were part of a subtle “lighting wayfinding” system that was part of the design intent. (Plus the ticketing area benefitted from the brightest light of all: the sun.)

New Fixture Options Are Changing the Shaping of Light – Most lighting companies that realize we are in the “new” century are embracing LED as a unique and versatile lighting source, instead of trying to retrofit existing fixtures. This has led to the manufacture of myriad fixture shapes. Additionally, lights are getting smaller, brighter, and more efficient, allowing many new form factors. Flat panel lights are becoming very common, and while they are great for utilitarian uses, and good for wipe down in environments that require it, they are just that…utilitarian. Unfortunately, these lights are being overly embraced by facilities managers as the latest and greatest when there are so many better options out there. They are essentially the new trough or acrylic lights, and should only be used when and where appropriate.

A challenge with the new form factors, however, comes in selection of a specific product. A lighting design professional may find something interesting that fits well into a space and aligns with the design vision. Unfortunately, the specified product may be very unique, and no other manufacturers make something like it. This creates a problem with substitutions – there may be another product that is “acceptable,” but it changes the shaping of light, ultimately changing the feel of the space. This is causing lighting designers to accept concessions for the spaces they are designing in order to marry the design to a competitive bidding process.

Lighting is Increasingly Being Viewed as a “Finish” – Lighting is a somewhat abstract concept in the minds of clients; it is too often an afterthought when it comes to creating the aesthetic of a space. Architects and interior designers can talk about and show samples of cabinets, carpeting, counters, wall coverings, and more, making these things more tangible. But lighting should also be viewed as a true “finish,” a critical component of a space. This also demonstrates the difference between having an electrical engineer do the lighting design – in conjunction with the architect – and commissioning the services of a dedicated lighting designer.

Emergency Lighting is no Longer an Unattractive Add-on – Emergency lighting solutions have greatly changed in recent years, allowing lighting designers to enjoy many more options than in the past. Existing lights can play a dual role as emergency lights, meaning that when power is lost they remain illuminated. This provides multiple benefits, including fewer fixtures and enhanced aesthetics created by not having the added clutter of stand-alone emergency fixtures. However, this newer approach still needs interpretation by a lighting professional as code-required lighting levels still need to be maintained. Lighting designers must properly understand these requirements.

Lighting Education for Clients is a Critical Service – As with any specialized service, it is important to understand and deal with the knowledge gap between clients and lighting design professionals. This has become a highly specialized discipline, so client education is a necessary component for a successful project. Light can be shaped many different ways – some which elevate safety and security, and others that detract from it. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between simply “doing the lighting calculations” and actually having the “right” amount of lighting. Perceived brightness and color temperature play a major role in making lighting decisions, and it is a knowledge base that goes far beyond standard lighting calculations. Lighting designers need to help their clients understand the impacts of their lighting decisions.

Lighting Education for Lighting Designers is Never-Ending – Because of the crazy rate of innovation in lighting fixture and controls manufacturing, lighting designers must always keep up with the latest products and approaches. Furthermore, there are now hundreds of lighting manufacturers, making it almost impossible to stay current with the continual stream of products flooding the market. Successful lighting designers must dedicate time to regularly researching and learning about new options – as well as options that are leaving the market. A fixture specified during the design stage today might not even be available during construction tomorrow.

Lighting Education for Trade Contractors is Not Keeping Up – There are a number of factors driving this trend, including the tightening availability of skilled labor, increasing sophistication of lighting equipment, limited understanding of individual manufacturer’s requirements, and more. Different products may have vastly differing installation requirements, so a competitive bid (versus flat spec) situation for lighting may entail options that generally look the same, but require installation using totally different methodologies. For example, lighting with clips attaching to a ceiling grid verses lighting that is actually part of that ceiling grid. Furthermore, the lack of commissioning training is negatively impacting the successful installation of today’s lighting systems.

Summary

Right now is a great time to be a lighting design professional, with so many options and an increasing appreciation for how specialized the discipline is becoming. However, many clients don’t yet understand how complicated recent innovations have made lighting design, and thus do not hire specialized lighting consultants. Depending upon the intended use of this space, this approach may be acceptable. But in many cases, this creates spaces that don’t align with the owner’s (and architect’s) vision, or have highly sophisticated systems that end-users don’t understand, ultimately costing more in first costs and life costs. Furthermore, too many people involved with lighting layout and design are still thinking “five years ago,” and not keeping up with currently technologies.

Questions about lighting design trends? Learn more about JDB Illumination and contact Craig Malesic, LC, PMP, EIT at 717-434-1558 or Thomas Schubert, PE at 717-434-1554.

Connect with Craig and Thomas

Craig

Thomas

You Might Also Like

Pedestrian Lighting: Establishing Lighting Levels for Safety & Security

 

Pedestrian Lighting Example
By Craig G. Malesic, LC, PMP, EIT

In my last post, Pedestrian Lighting: A Case Study, I outlined a recent JDB Illumination  commission to provide pedestrian lighting for a neighborhood adjacent to a college campus. Exterior lighting is critical to create a safe environment whether for a college campus, business park, urban environment, parking lot, public park, or anywhere else. Lighting designers need to evaluate two important design objectives when designing pedestrian lighting, which we refer to as Illumination for Safety and Illumination for Security. These may seem similar, but in reality they are very different.

Illumination for Safety

Illumination for Safety refers to the proper amount of illumination required for a person to detect a hazard and take appropriate action to mitigate that hazard. It is intended for safe navigation of pedestrians while on foot, bike, or other normal means of non-motorized transportation. The primary area of evaluation is typically the “street adjacent” pedestrian way or bike way, otherwise known as a sidewalk or path. The illumination of these areas is intended to help pedestrians and bikers identify potential tripping hazards such as uneven pavement, tree roots, debris, and changes in elevation.

Illumination for Safety focuses on the horizontal plane, meaning the ground, as well as the color of the light. We measure the average amount of light on the horizontal plane at finished grade in foot candles. The purpose is to verify that there is enough light present to identify tripping hazards. Lamp color is measured by the kelvin temperature of the lamp. For instance, a kelvin temperature of 4000K provides a white light that increases the perceived appearance of higher illumination levels compared to lower kelvin temperatures, which create a yellow color cast. The yellow cast, while providing sufficient illumination, can appear dimly lit and affect the perceived brightness.

Illumination for Security

Illumination for Security is focused on protecting people, property, and public spaces from harm. It is defined as the proper amount of illumination required for a person to perceive and evaluate potential threats. The intent of design is to illuminate the vertical plane, particularly the face, body, and hands of other persons. This illumination allows the pedestrian to evaluate approaching persons by analyzing facial gestures, hand positions, body language, and potential weapons. The evaluation is typically done subconsciously, and the approaching person is classified as a threat or non-threat.

In addition to a focus on the vertical plane, Illumination for Security also seeks to reduce disability glare. Vertical illumination is the average amount of light, measured in foot candles, on a vertical surface located 6’-0” above finished grade and parallel to the path of travel. An example would be the face of an approaching pedestrian. The average is computed in both directions along the path of travel to verify that threats can be identified regardless of which direction you are walking. Glare is a visual sensation caused by excessive and uncontrolled brightness. It can be disabling (disability glare) or simply uncomfortable (discomfort glare).

An example of disability glare is when you are driving West directly into the setting sun. This often create a situation that is dangerous because the “sun in your eyes” limits your ability to see the road. Disability glare causes a reduction in visibility due to intense light sources in the field of view.

An example of discomfort glare is when the bright sun is overhead, causing you to put on sunglasses so you don’t need to squint. It is uncomfortable but does not dramatically impact your vision. Discomfort glare creates a sensation of annoyance, or even pain, induced by overly bright light sources.

Glare is subjective, and sensitivity to glare can vary widely among individuals. For pedestrian lighting, providing luminaries that shield the lamp source from direct view can reduce or eliminate both disability and discomfort glare.

Codes, Ordinances, and Standards

Although some cities and municipalities have code requirements for pedestrian lighting, many areas have none.

However, there are several professional standards that provide recommended methods for the design of pedestrian lighting. Most of these standards provide a methodology, but not specific illumination criteria. Where specific criteria are provided, they are presented as guidelines, and allow for practical installation, site-specific requirements, and ambient lighting criteria to modify the general guidelines. These professional standards have been published by the Illumination Society of North America (IESNA), with some criteria jointly created with other entities such as the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). These guidelines include:

  • Design Guideline: Recommended Lighting for Walkways & Class 1 Bikeways (IESNA DG-5-94)
  • Guideline for Security Lighting for People, Property, and Public Spaces (IESNA DG-1-03)
  • Recommended Practice: Roadway Lighting (IESNA RP-8-2014)
  • Recommended Practice: Lighting for Exterior Environments (IESNA RP-33-2014)
  • The Lighting Handbook: Reference and Application (10th Edition)
  • Model Lighting Ordinance (Joint IDA/IES MLO)

As JDB Illumination worked on the college pedestrian lighting project, we conducted a review of various model ordinances, then compared them to the recommendations presented in the professional standards. The ordinance we reviewed included:

  • District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT)
  • New York City Department of Transportation
  • San Francisco, California
  • Baltimore City Department of Transportation, Maryland
  • City of San Diego, California
  • City of Redmond, Washington

The table below compiles these various ordinance illumination levels and professional standard recommendations. Once this was reviewed, a recommendation was made for the illumination levels for this particular project.

Pedestrian Lighting Levels                  EAVG (FC): Average Horizontal Illumination measured at grade in Foot Candles
                 EMIN(FC): Minimum Horizontal Illumination measured at grade in Foot Candles
                 EV(FC): Minimum Vertical Illumination measured at 6’ above graded in Foot Candles
                 EAVG/EMIN: Ratio of Average to Minimum Horizontal Illumination

Lighting design professionals must consider numerous variables when Illuminating for Safety and Illuminating for Security. The JDB recommendation for the college campus might not be the correct recommendation for another application, but it does provide a useful baseline for beginning the conversation.

Questions about lighting for safety and security, or general lighting design? Check out JDB Illumination and reach out to Craig G. Malesic, LC, PMP, EIT at 717-434-1543 or cmalesic@jdbe.com.

Connect with Craig

You Might Also Like

Pedestrian Lighting: A Case Study

 

Pedestrian Lighting - Gloomy Street
by Craig G. Malesic, LC, PMP, EIT

A longtime collegiate client reached out to JDB to discuss an off-campus project they hoped to spearhead: installing pedestrian lighting in a residential area adjacent to campus. As Simon Sinek likes to say, “Start with why,” so our first question was, “Why do you want to do this?”

Their response was fairly simple: “We want to improve the safety of the neighborhood; it is very dark along the streets and many of our students regularly walk in that area at night.”

Although there may seem to be a simple answer to approaching the lighting design, we needed a little more precision. As the conversation progressed, we established that the real need was actually two-fold: first, make sure that students and residents would feel safe while walking. The college didn’t want anyone to trip or fall, since the streets were very dark at night. Second, they wanted students and residents to feel secure when walking at night. With this information, we were getting to the real “why” of the project.

The next question we asked was, “Who are the project stakeholders?” We needed to know who cared about the project. As it turned out, quite a few people were interested in the success of the endeavor:

  • College – Not only was the college interested in the safety and security of their students, they also wanted to be a good steward to the adjacent community by improving the area.
  • Municipality – Because the municipality would ultimately be in charge of the finished product, they wanted to have input into the design process.
  • Police – The local police department oversaw the area, and cared about how the light would affect their ability to see when biking, walking, or driving on patrol.
  • Residents – People living in the neighborhood wanted to make sure the light did not trespass into their homes or clutter their yards.
  • Students – The college students wanted to feel safe and secure as they walked or biked through the neighborhood.

To make sure that we understood the project, it was important to go out and take a look at the area. We had a number of questions to address:

  • What do the streets look like?
  • Are there sidewalks and curbs?
  • Is there grass between the sidewalks and curbs?
  • Is there any light there now?
  • Do residents have lights in front of their homes?

As they say, “see is believing,” so we drove through the neighborhood to understand its layout and the variables we would be dealing with.

Next, we reviewed the municipal zoning ordinance to establish any existing lighting levels or other requirements that needed to be followed. Preliminary discussions were had with both the municipal facilities director as well as the chief of police to establish any concerns. Additionally, we held meetings with the college director of facilities and head of campus security to understand their viewpoints. Next, a “town hall” style meeting was planned to gain community input as we progressed further into the project.

Based upon this data-gathering – visual inspection, stakeholder interviews, community input – we established a list of requirements for the project. This created a roadmap of sorts to establish the work that needed to follow. Here’s what we had learned so far:

  • Lighting should be attractive to the residents
  • Lighting fixtures should look like they belong in a residential area
  • Lighting should illuminate walking surfaces to prevent trips and falls (Illumination for Safety)
  • Lighting should illuminate people to create a feeling of safety and security (Illumination for Security)
  • Houses should be protected from light trespass
  • Unnecessary glare to streets, that might impede vehicular traffic, should be avoided
  • Lighting would be municipality-owned and maintained
  • Lighting would be fed from new common electric meters paid for by municipality
  • Wiring would travel underground and be installed in an existing right-of-way

The next step in the project involved establishing existing lighting levels. In order to determine the level of lighting that needed to be added, we first had to set a benchmark of existing lighting in the neighborhood. We accomplished this by going onsite and taking photometric (lighting level) readings. These were taken at the sidewalks on both sides of the street, as well as the middle of the street, approximately every 75 feet. For street intersections, we took measurements at each corner.

All of this data was placed on a plan for future reference. What we found, in layman’s terms, was that “it was dark … really dark!” There were no municipal street lights and very few residential post lamps installed near the sidewalks. Furthermore, lighting was not typically turned on at the entrances to the homes. When the lights were on, the style of lighting created a lot of glare but did not cast much light onto the sidewalk areas.

Next, we set out to establish specific design criteria. In other words, we needed to determine the appropriate lighting levels for the project. But how would we take lighting measurements? On the ground? In the air? Facing up? Facing ahead?

This is a broader topic of establishing lighting levels, known as Illumination for Safety and Illumination for Security. I’ll tackle this subject in the next blog!

Are you considering a lighting project – outdoor or indoor? JDB Illumination not only creates full lighting designs, but we can also gather data and provide knowledge to help you make informed decisions. If you’re considering a project, but aren’t sure if it makes sense or even what it would entail, reach out to Craig G. Malesic, LC, PMP, EIT at 717-434-1558 or cmalesic@jdbe.com.

Connect with Craig

You Might Also Like

Pennsylvania Mailing Address: PO Box 22160 | York, PA 17402 | 717.757.5602

Maryland Office: 913 Ridgebrook Road, Suite 216  | Sparks, MD 21152 | 410.771.3433