Agenda for Recommendation to Adopt a Frontage
Road Master Lighting Plan
1.Objectives
2.Update to PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
a. Test Site Results
b. Life Cycle cost analysis
c. Light levels – field measurements
3.Update to STRATEGY
4.Design CHARACTERISTICS
a. Pole height variance
b. Pedestrian and Bollard application
c. Roadway options
Objectives
SAFETY:
Enhance object and obstacle recognition
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Dark Sky,
efficiency.
AESTHETICS:
Light levels , character
WAYFINDING:
Traffic flow, target destinations
FIELD MEASUREMENTS:
TEST SITE @ BETTY FORD PARKING LOT
3 bar LED 350mA – 60W
1.6 fc @ 20’
0.9 fc @ 40’
1.6 fc
HPS – 100W
3.4 fc @ 20’
1.9 fc @ 40’
3.4 fc
Performance Criteria:
TEST SITE – OBJECT RECOGNITION
Performance Criteria: COST
(REFER TO HANDOUT FOR LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS)
ENERGY USAGE
525mA LED 25% better than HPS
350mA LED 42% better than HPS
ANNUAL AMATORIZED SYSTEM COST
525mA
LED 25% better than HPS
350mA
LED 36% better than HPS
Performance Criteria:
TEST SITE – PUBLIC SURVEY
STRATEGY: LIGHTING ZONES
FIELD MEASUREMENTS:
CITY MARKET AND SAFEWAY
3.9 fc
1.8 fc
2.4 fc
6.9 fc
3.8 fc
2.7 fc
FIELD MEASUREMENTS:
WEST VAIL ROUND-ABOUT
3.2 fc
2.4 fc
3.9 fc
Strategy – Lighting Level Zones
High 4:1max/min, 3.2fc max
(roundabouts)
Mid 6:1max/min, 1.9fc max
approx. 100’-0” spacing
Low intermittent, 1.9fc max
approx. 225’-0” spacing
Secondary Intersections,
1.9fc max, intermittent
Strategy – Ford Park to Vail Village
High Level
Mid Level , 100’ spacing
Low Level , 225’ spacing
Secondary Intersections
Strategy – Simba to Village round-about
High Level
Mid Level, 100’ spacing
Low Level, 225’ spacing
Secondary Intersections
Strategy – West Vail to Simba Run
High Level
Mid Level, 100’ spacing
Low Level, 225’ spacing
Secondary Intersections
QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS
REGARDING TEST SITE,
LIFE CYCLE COST
ANALYSIS, OR
STRATEGY
DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS:
MEETING LIGHTING ORDINANCE POLE HEIGHT
20’-0” POLE
¾
¾
¾
¾
Poles on both sides of roadway
Easements for private property
More construction impact
More cost
DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS:
RECOMMENDED POLE HEIGHT VARIANCE
25’-0” POLE
¾ Poles on Hwy side only
¾ Minimize roadwork/cost implications
¾ Minimize impact to private properties
CHARACTER: DESIGN ELEMENTS
CHARACTER: STANDARD DESIGN ELEMENTS
TOV Village Pole
(Future Mod for full cutoff)
Bike/Ped Path
Corten Steel
Bollard
Black Straight Pole with Cast
Base
Banner Arms
CHARACTER: OPTIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS
BASIC CONCEPT
BASIC :
• standard options only
• 25’ roadway pole with banner
arm and cast iron base
•14’ banner arm pole in
medians
Probable Cost :
Roadway Pole: $450
Median Pole: $900
Total: $1350
CHARACTER: OPTIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS
BETTER CONCEPT
BETTER:
• decorative off-the-shelf
brackets
• painted signage on roadway
• illuminated banner arms on
pedestrian pole
Probable Cost :
Roadway Pole: $1,460
Median Pole: $2,775
Total : $4,235
(+ $2,885 above BASIC)
CHARACTER: OPTIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS
BEST CONCEPT
BEST:
• signature ornamentation
• laser cut signage with lighting
• signature banner arms and
light bracket
Probable Cost :
Roadway Pole: $1,660
Median Pole: $3,475
Total: $5,135
(+ $3700 above BASIC)
CHARACTER: APPLICATION
• Roadway pole with banner arm/signage
• Village pole at crosswalks
• Roadway pole with banner arm/signage
• Banner arm pole at primary intersections
• Pedestrian pole at crosswalks
• Roadway pole - no banner arm
• Bike/Ped path bollard at intersections
• Roadway pole with banner arm/signage
• Bike/Ped path bollard at intersections
CHARACTER: APPLICATION
Relocate Flag Poles on West and
East of Village Round About to
center medians
25’ ROADWAY POLE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
REGARDING DECORATIVE ELEMENTS:
NEXT STEP:
SUBMIT DRAFT OF THE RECOMMENDATION TO
ADOPT A MASTER PLAN
FOR FRONTAGE ROAD LIGHTING