Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

44 Individuals from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were contacted to ask if their agency would consider participating in the survey. Individuals were identified based on participation in the AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Roadway Lighting, the AASHTO Committee on Design, or the AASHTO Committee on Traffic. A total of 44 agencies responded by completing the questionnaire, an 86% response rate. The survey was implemented on SurveyGizmo; a backup survey was set up using eSurveysPro, in case respondents could not access the first survey site. A few respondents were unable to access either online survey site, so a Microsoft Word document of the survey, prepared as a fillable form, was provided to these participants. This appendix summarizes the responses to each question. Percentages may not add exactly to 100% because of rounding and because respondents could select more than one response for some questions (or did not give responses). When responses included written comments, these are provided verbatim as supplied by each respondent. Section 1: Survey Introduction The questions in this section (Q1–5) included the names, agencies, and departments of the respondents, as well as their contact information. Section 2: State DOT Policies and Guidance on Isolated Rural Intersection Lighting Q6. Does your agency have any policies or guidance for determining where and how to imple- ment isolated rural intersection lighting? • Yes (if available online please include URL or brief description): 70% [AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV] Responses: – AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide [AR] – ANSI RP-8 and AASHTO guidelines [NM] – Based on accidents caused by darkness and geometric restrictions [WV] – CT Roadway Lighting Manual [CA] – Case-by-case basis based on crash data [AL] – Chapter 15 Roadway & Intersection Lighting [TN] – Division’s Memorandum [VA] A P P E N D I X B Survey Questionnaire and Results

Survey Questionnaire and Results 45   – Federal Highways (FHWA) warrant analysis worksheet [CT] – Guidance is in Ch. 15 of our Road Design Manual https://dotfiles.sd.gov/rd/rdmch15.pdf [SD] – Indiana Design Manual Chapter 502, https://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/design/IDM [IN] – Other: http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/hwi/hwi.pdf, see Chapter 2 section 3 and Chapter 6 section 2 [TX] – Roundabouts are required to have lighting. 4-way intersections are based on safety and budget case by case [PA] – Section 709, 710, and 711 of policy manual at: https://transportation.ky.gov/Organizational- Resources/Policy%20Manuals%20Library/Traffic%20Operations.pdf [KY] – We do have policies for “beacon lighting” as well as intersection lighting where we light the entire intersection [ND] – While we don’t have a specific policy for rural intersection lighting as a whole, we do require lighting for rural roundabout projects [SC] – “Roadway Lighting Design Guidelines” v6 at our agency website: https://www.udot.utah.gov/ main/uconowner.gf?n=3219531223985650 [UT] – “Case by case” project decision per traffic volume and crash rate [OR] – Draft/unpublished guidance used by design section 1 [VT] – http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/DesignPolicy/GDOT-DPM.pdf [GA] – http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/tem/2015/chapter10.pdf [MN] – http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/live/sites/wydot/files/shared/Traffic%20data/Traffic%20 Studies%20Manual.pdf http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/live/sites/wydot/files/shared/ Traffic%20data/Form%20TR-17.pdf [WY] – https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/05/tgp0700-2015-06.pdf [AZ] – https://epg.modot.org/index.php/901.1_Lighting_to_be_Provided,_Operated_and_ Maintained_at_State_Expense [MO] – https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/11-03. pdf#11-3-1 [WI] – https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/bulletins_manuals/2019-cdot-lighting- design-guide [CO] – https://www.fdot.gov/traffic/TrafficServices/Studies/MUTS/MUTS.shtm [FL] – https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/chapter/05-20-2020.761.136.pdf and Chapter 6 of the Traffic and Safety Manual - https://iowadot.gov/traffic/Library/Traffic-and-Safety- Manual [IA] – https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=17155 [NV] – https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/RDM/documents/2015Roadway DesignManual0200319.pdf Section 11.8 [NJ] – https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1040.pdf [NJ] • No: 30% [AK, DE, HI, ID, LA, MA, MD, ME, MS, MT, NC, OH, OK] Q7: Does your agency have policies or guidance for determining where and how to implement lighting that is not part of a continuous roadway lighting system for rural roundabouts? • Yes (If available online please include URL or brief description): 73% [AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV] Responses: – AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide, IES RP-8-18, and Department Design Policy [AR] – All new roundabouts are to be illuminated [OR] – All roundabouts are fully lit to 1000ft off each crossroad [AL]

46 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections – All roundabouts are to be lit [FL] – All roundabouts receive lighting [MT] – All roundabouts will have lighting. The extent of the lighting is a project-by-project decision [GA] – CT Roadway Lighting Manual [CA] – Division’s Memorandum [VA] – Guidance is in Ch. 15 of our Road Design Manual. https://dotfiles.sd.gov/rd/rdmch15.pdf [SD] – IES, Design Guide for Roundabout Lighting, 2008 [NV] – Indiana Design Manual, Chapter 502 [IN] – Needs updating, work is in progress. Very old information in this document. Page 1.5 http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/lighting/2010_Roadway%20Lighting_Design_ Manual2.pdf [MN] – Per IESNA guidelines [CT] – Roundabouts are required to have lighting [PA] – Section 11.12 https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/RDM/documents/ 2015RoadwayDesignManual0200319.pdf [NJ] – Section 711 at above link [KY] – See #7 [MO] – See answer to #7 [SC] – TEM 1140-4.6.10 refers to IES DG-19-08 [OH] – We always light our roundabouts [ND] – We require lighting at roundabouts [NM] – “Roadway Lighting Design Guidelines” v6 Section 7.6 [UT] – http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/DesignPolicy/GDOT-DPM.pdf [GA] – https://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/manuals/Traffic_Manual.pdf [ID] – https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/ 11-01.pdf [WI] – https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/bulletins_manuals/2019-cdot-lighting- design-guide [CO] – https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1040.pdf [WA] – Our current design policy is in line with AASHTO stating that intersection lighting is warranted at all roundabouts [MS] • No: 27% [AK, AZ, DE, HI, IA, LA, ME, NC, OK, TN, TX, WY] Q8: Does your agency have policies or guidance for determining where and how to implement lighting that is not part of a continuous roadway lighting system for rural at-grade rail crossings? • Yes (If online please include URL or brief description): 25% [CA, DE, MI, MO, OR, PA, SD, UT, VA, VT, WA] Responses: – Based on budget and safety case by case [UT] – CT Roadway Lighting Manual [CA] – Division’s Memorandum [VA] – Guidance is in Ch. 15 of our Road Design Manual. https://dotfiles.sd.gov/rd/rdmch15.pdf [SD] – Limited guidance that is being clarified [MO] – “Roadway Lighting Design Guidelines” v6 Section 7.6 [UT] – “Case by case” project decision per necessity [OR] – https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1040.pdf [WA] – See #8 [DE] • No: 75% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, WI, WV]

Survey Questionnaire and Results 47   Q9: Does your agency have policies or guidance for determining where and how to imple- ment lighting that is not part of a continuous roadway lighting system for other rural locations? • Yes (If online please include URL or brief description): 57% [AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, ID, IN, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NV, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI] Responses: – All interchanges are to be lit [FL] – CT Roadway Lighting Manual [CA] – DDI and other non-standard traffic configurations usually receive lighting [AL] – Interchanges, Guidance is in Ch. 15 of our Road Design Manual. https://dotfiles.sd.gov/rd/ rdmch15.pdf [SD] – Intersection for Thru-Turns, DDIs, CFIs [UT] – NCDOT has a method for determining lighting warrants and justification at controlled access interchanges continuous facilities [NC] – New pedestrian crossing may have lighting per traffic volume, crash rate, and ped/biker’s activity [OR] – Other: http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/hwi/hwi.pdf [TX] – Pedestrian hybrid beacons [MA] – Please follow the URL for the department lighting guide: https://www.nevadadot.com/ home/showdocument?id=17155 [NV] – RCUTS and DDI’s [MN] – Roadways, Intersections, Parking Areas, Rest Areas, Crosswalks, Walkways, and Bikeways [VT] – Roundabouts are required to have lighting. 4-way intersections are based on safety and budget case by case [PA] – SPUI/Tunnel/Underbridge [MI] – Section 11.11 and 11.13 https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/RDM/ documents/2015RoadwayDesignManual0200319.pdf [NJ] – See #7 [MO] – Underpass lighting length greater than 80ft and tunnel lighting per aforementioned references [AR] – We have a guideline which follows AASHTO [AK] – https://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/manuals/Traffic_Manual.pdf [ID] – https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/11-01.pdf [WI] – https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/bulletins_manuals/2019-cdot-lighting- design-guide [CO] – https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1040.pdf [WA] – See #8 [DE] – Working to revise Indiana design manual guidance. moving towards introducing policy for interchange and alternative intersection lighting guidance [IN] • No: 43% [AZ, GA, HI, IA, KY, MD, ME, MS, MT, ND, NM, OH, OK, SC, TN, VA, WV, WY] Q10: What treatments other than lighting are used at isolated rural intersections, if any (select all that apply)? • Signal lights (e.g., flashing beacons): 85% [AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, IA, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WY] • Special signage; 78% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, OH, OK, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WY] • Special pavement markings: 54% [CA, CT, DE, GA, ID, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NM, OK, OR, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA]

48 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections • Rumble strips: 68% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, PA, SD, WA, WY] • Other (please specify): 22% [AR, DE, FL, GA, MN, NC, OK, OR, WA] Responses: – Combination of flashing beacons, signage, and rumble strips [AR] – High friction surface treatment [DE] – Illuminated bollards [GA] – LED stop signs [MN] – Reflective sign posts [OK] – Varies by location/Design criteria [WA] – Any of the above options may be used where there is a history of nighttime accidents [NC] – Bulb-out treatment/median/crosswalk marking [OR] – https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/traffic/doc_library/ pdf/final-report---contract-c8k21.pdf?sfvrsn=b46a84fe_0 [FL] Section 3: Warranting Issues Q11: What factors does your agency consider when determining whether to install isolated rural intersection lighting (select all that apply)? • Request from municipality or local government: 86% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV] • Crash history: 93% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY] • Intersection geometry: 73% [AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KY, MD, MI, MN, MO, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WY] • Traffic volume: 70% [AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, MD, MI, MN, MO, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] • Pedestrian use: 59% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, MD, ME, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA] • Type of intersection (e.g., roundabout, stop-controlled, signalized, etc.): 82% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OK, OR, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV] • Other (please specify): 14% [DE, MI, NC, NJ, OK, WA] Responses: – Channelization, Transit, Ped Features [WA] – Current: crash history, volume. Upcoming: geometry, pedestrians, speed limit, etc. [DE] – Lighting along SRs in NC is generally installed by the local utility on behalf of a municipal- ity [NC] – Maintenance, typically a local municipality [OK] – SPUI’s eliminate traffic signals [MI] – Turn movements [NJ] Section 4: Design Decisions Q12: What lighting performance criteria are used by your agency in the design of isolated rural intersection lighting (select all that apply)? • Illuminance(s) from AASHTO GL-7 (Roadway Lighting Design Guide): 57% [AK, AR, AZ, DE, HI, ID, IN, KY, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, NV, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WI, WV]

Survey Questionnaire and Results 49   • Illuminance(s) from IES RP-8 (Recommended Practice for Roadway Lighting): 69% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, GA, IA, ID, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY] • Other illuminance(s) - Please specify value(s)/source: 12% [CA, FL, ND, VT, WI] Responses: – AASHTO GL-6 [ND, VT] – CT Roadway Lighting Manual [CA] – https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/traffic-ops/manuals-andstandards/ teops/ch11.aspx [WI] – https://www.fdot.gov/roadway/fdm/default.shtm [FL] • Luminance(s) from AASHTO GL-7: 12% [NV, SC, TX, UT, VA] • Luminance(s) from IES RP-8: 24% [CA, GA, MA, MD, NV, TX, UT, VA, WA, WY] • Other luminance(s) - Please specify value(s)/source: 2% [CA] Responses: – CT Roadway Lighting Manual [CA] • Uniformity ratio(s) from AASHTO GL-7: 38% [AK, AR, IN, KY, MN, MS, NC, NV, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV] • Uniformity ratio(s) from IES RP-8: 55% [AL, AR, CA, CT, GA, IA, MA, MD, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WY] • Other uniformity ratio(s) - Please specify value(s) / source: 5% [CA, ND] Responses: – CT Roadway Lighting Manual [CA] – AASHTO GL-6 [ND] • Glare control (e.g., veiling luminance) from AASHTO GL-7: 21% [AR, IN, NC, NV, SC, SD, TX, UT, WV] • Glare control (e.g., veiling luminance) from IES RP-8: 31% [AL, GA, IA, MA, MD, NM, NV, OK, TX, UT, VA, WA, WY] • Other glare control - Please specify value(s)/source: 2% [MN] Responses: – Luminaires on the approved list are checked for glare on the roadway. Veiling luminance is not run again for the intersection [MN] • Light source spectrum/color (e.g., CCT) - Please specify: 45% [AR, CA, CO, HI, MD, ME, MS, ND, NJ, NV, OH, OK, OR, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV] Responses: – 4000 K [AR, MD, ME, OR] – 3000 K [ND] – 3000 K or 4000 K – CCT [TN] – HPS or LED 4000 K [NJ] – Lower system wide lighting temperature for one of our districts due to background lighting affecting research telescope use [HI] – ODOT currently follows RP-8-2005 (illuminance typical) but will be switching to RP-8-2018 in the near future (luminance only) ODOT standards follow AMA recommendations for CCT = 3000 K max [OH] – See previous URL for NDOT Signal, Lighting and ITS Design Guide. We currently reference the AASHTO GL-6 in this 2019 edition, but apply most current practices [NV] – Standard Specs [CA] – Our specifications call for LED lighting with CCT between 3500 and 4500 K [MS] • Luminaire lateral distribution (e.g., Type I, II, III, etc.) - Please specify: 48% [AK, AR, IA, IN, ME, MS, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY]

50 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections Responses: – All types based on roadway characteristics [ND] – IES Type II, III or V [VA] – Not sure [IA] – Type II [UT] – Type II, Type V [AR] – Type III [AK, ME, OR] – Usually Type III [NJ] – Our designs usually call for Type II or Type III IES (or R2 or R3 LED) [MS] – Varies [NM] • Light pollution/Dark sky criteria (e.g., cutoff type, BUG rating, etc.) - Please specify: 60% [AK, AR, AZ, CO, CT, GA, HI, MA, MD, ME, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, OK, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] Responses: – BUG 3 0 3 [AZ] – BUG rating [TN, VA, VT] – BUG U0. Arkansas Shielded Outdoor Lighting Act prohibits uplight [AR] – Cutoff [AK, OR] – Lighting installed by encroachment or permit must be cut off. Lighting installed by NCDOT has a maximum BUG rating of 3-0-3 [NC] – Lighting levels are per IES RP-8 with 3000 K max CCT and BUG ratings per luminaire lumen output [CO] – Luminaires on our approved list have 0 uplight. MnDOT can not participate in funding for lighting that has uplight [MN] – Minimize glare with cutoff and BUG ratings [NJ] – See light source spectrum/color above [HI] – Cutoff type, BUG rating [MD, UT] – Full cutoff, X0X bug rating [NM] – Full IES cutoff [ME] • If your agency has a link to design specifications for rural intersection lighting check this box and paste the URL: 14% [IN, MO, NJ, TX, WA, WY] Responses: – Design criteria implemented is: Maximum Max/Min of 6:1 and a minimum illuminance of 0.4 fc, minimum average illuminance of 0.6 fc in the statistical area of 2 – 12′ driving lanes with the fixture mounted 15′ from the edge of the statistical area, pole spacing of 200′, mounting height of 35′, LLF of fixture 0.85 - Meet IES LM-79-2008 - L70 Rated - CCT = 4000K – 4500K - DLC (DesignLights Consortium) qualification - UL Listed - 5-year limited warranty - Rated life of 80,000 hours - Application Based Lighting Criteria [WY] – Internal Standards (Design Manual Chapter 1040) developed from RP-8, Cutoff Standards developed from Dark Skies, Color Temperatures based on various environmental factors (USFS, USFW, WA Dept of Ecology, etc) [WA] – These are considered for all lighting including isolated rural intersection lighting [TX] – https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019%20Missouri%20Standard%20 Specific%20-%20MHTC%20%28July%202019%29_SIGNED.pdf and https://www.modot. org/sites/default/files/documents/Std_Plans_07_01_2019_0.pdf [MO] – https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/RDM/documents/2015Roadway DesignManual0200319.pdf [NJ] Q13. What lighting equipment and/or hardware configurations are considered in the design of isolated rural intersection lighting (select all that apply)? • Number of luminaires - Please specify: 73% [AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IN, MA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY]

Survey Questionnaire and Results 51   Responses: – 1 [AK] – 1 beacon light per intersection, rest whatever needed to provide adequate lighting and uniformity [ND] – 2 – 2, 3, 4 [VA] – 32 to 48 [UT] – 8 – 12 [MI] – As needed for avg foot-candle and avg/min uniformity [PA] – For roundabouts, concentrate on illuminating the circulating roadway. Then evaluate each leg for additional lighting [GA] – Minimum 2 [AZ] – Minimum required [MS, NJ, VT, WA] – See URL provided for all Signal, Lighting and ITS per NDOT’s Design Guide [NV] – Typically one luminaire, LED, on a new pole, installed for the purpose of identification of inter- section. Rarely is full illumination necessary due to the isolated nature of the location [MT] – We only use LEDs now. We also consider the need for additional transition lighting to go from dark to intersection light levels [SD] – Delineation lighting or full lighting with approaches, 1–4 luminaires [MN] – https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/Traffic%20Operations%20APL%20 Jul%202019.pdf [MO] – Light “conflict areas” [CA] – 2, 4 or 6 depending on location [AR] • Luminaire configuration (e.g., flat lens, drop lens, yard light, etc.) - Please specify: 63% [AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, HI, IA, IN, KY, MA, MI, MN, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, TX, UT, VA, WA, WY] Responses: – All new luminaires installations for HDOT are cut-off LED [HI] – Current standard for all safety lighting is 40′ pole with approximately 120W LED, Type 2 or 3 on 8′ arm, placed and spaced as needed [TX] – Dark Skies compliant [MI] – Flat - LED, Drop lens – HPS [KY] – Flat, full cutoff [VA] – Full cutoff, cobra head style [WA] – LED light source, flat lens. But some areas still have HPS/drop lens installed on a utility pole [AR] – LED, no drop lens [AZ] – Medium-Cutoff-Type III [OR] – Drop lens for beacon lighting, rest now LED that generally have flat lens [ND] – Flat lens [CT, NJ] – Flat lens, drop lens [UT] – Flat lenses, offset only [AL] – Full cutoff [NM] – In older HPS fixtures we use flat glass to help control glare [MS] – Yes [IA] • Pole configuration (e.g., existing utility poles, new construction, spacing) - Please specify: 93% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, IN, KY, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] Responses: – As needed for avg foot-candle and avg/min uniformity [PA] – For roundabouts, use the largest practical spacing to reach the recommended values. If being installed as a utility permit, then the spacing is based on existing power poles and any supplemental poles [GA]

52 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections – If new construction, approximately 200ft spacing. If a request by a city or a county, usually existing utility poles are used [AR] – Metal poles. Utility poles may be used [OR] – New Construction: 50–80 ft. spacing [MI] – New construction [NM] – Spacing [AK, ME] – Use of existing utility poles when available [HI] – Usually 2 for 2-lane roads, 4 for multi-lane roads [KY] – Usually existing UP [NJ] – Utility and new construction [WA] – Existing new or signal poles [VA] – Existing utility poles, new construction, spacing [UT] – In some cases we allow LPA to use existing utility poles and in some case we install poles as needed [MS] – May be new or existing wood utility poles if outside the clear zone. If inside the clear zone, breakaway poles are required [NC] – Minimize [VT] – New construction, pole spacing is irrelevant [AZ] – New construction, spacing [CA] – New metal poles, typically 200–250 ft spacing [AL] – Use both existing and new poles, spacing depends on photometrics [ND] – Yes [IA] • Mounting height - Please specify: 88% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IA, IN, KY, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY] Responses: – 28–30 feet [VA] – 30–40 feet [NC, OR, WA] – 30 feet [AK, AR, MI] – 35 to 45 feet [AZ, TN] – 40 ft [KY, ME, ND] – 40 to 45 feet [UT] – 45 ft average [AL] – As needed for avg foot-candle and avg/min uniformity [PA] – Typically 25–26′ – Pole heights range between 25–35 feet, depending on site conditions [GA] – Multiple [CA, IA] – Normally limit poles to between 25–40 feet [MS] – Standardized [VT] – Varies, 40′ typical [NM] • Light source(s) (e.g., HPS, LED, MH, MV, LPS, induction, etc.) - Please specify: 88% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY] Responses: – LED [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, GA, ME, MI, MN, NC, ND, OR, TN, VA, WA] – All LED in last 2 years, HPS is allowed also [PA] – HPS - most old stuff, LED new stuff [KY] – HPS or LED [NJ, UT] – LED only when funded by the state [MD] – LED, HPS at local request [NM]

Survey Questionnaire and Results 53   – MDOT is now using LED, we allow utilities to use what they can maintain [MS] – See luminaire configuration above [HI] – U0, LED luminaires with photosensors are installed. [CO] • Wattage(s) - Please specify: 68% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CT, FL, IA, KY, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY] Responses: – Varies [IA, NM] – 100–130 watt [OR] – 138 W [UT] – 200–400 W LED [VA] – 250 watt comparative [KY, MI] – 250-watt equivalent, approximately 11,000 – 15,000 lumens [AR] – 25k [AK] – As needed for avg foot-candle and avg/min uniformity [PA] – If HPS 150 Watt [NJ] – Lowest wattage to accomplish light levels [WA] – Typically 160W to 250W LED, based more on lumen output [AL] – Varies HPS 100–250 watt and LED that are equivalent to HPS wattage [ND] – About 150 W (18000-lumen output) [AZ] – Approx. 113 W/250W HPS replacement [MN] – Limit to between 250–400 watt (or LED equivalent) for glare control [MS] – Varies based on the roadway width, mounting height, setback and bracket arm length [NC] • Lighting controls (e.g., photosensor, time clock, motion sensor) - Please specify: 71% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, KY, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] Responses: – Photocell [AK, AZ, CA, KY, NC, NJ, NM, OR, PA] – Either individual photocell, or a signal photocell at the service point [AR] – Photocell at cabinet [AL, ME, MN, WA] – Photosensor, have some solar beacon lighting that are astrological clock [ND] – Photosensor/Time clock or solar [MI] – Not yet [VA] – Photosensor and time clock [VT] – Photosensor, motion sensor [UT] Q14. Does your agency ever install isolated rural intersection lighting as “beacon lighting” primarily to create a visible element to approaching traffic rather than to illuminate the road and potential hazards? • Yes - If so, what is the percentage of beacon lighting installations: 42% [AL, AZ, CO, GA, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NJ, NM, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA] Responses: – 3 [AL] – 60% [AZ] – Currently have about 100 in place with another 50 going in this summer. Maybe 50% of our isolated rural lighting are beacon lighting [ND] – Division’s Memorandum [VA] – I don’t have percentage [NM] – Intersection Conflict Warning System (ICWS) [MO] – Less than 5% [KY, VT] – Less than 25% [MI]

54 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections – Not primarily as beacon lighting but it is an added benefit. However most of our LEDs do not emit much light in the 80–90 degree range, so they are not that visible as beacons at intersections [TX] – Not sure of the exact percentage, but it is a treatment for 2-way and 4-way stop controls [GA] – Only less than 5 locations around state [UT] – This is a new practice that is just being developed and implemented. A few locations with utility provided luminaires for various reasons [WA] – Used in low numbers [NJ] – Warning signs with flashing beacon [CO] – Intersection lighting is to create beacon [MT] – Policy is in place but infrequently used [IN] • No: 58% [AK, AR, CA, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, MA, MD, ME, MS, NC, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, WI, WV, WY] Q15: What information is your agency lacking to help make appropriate decisions about isolated rural intersection lighting (select all that apply)? • Warranting criteria: 50% [AK, HI, ID, KY, MA, ME, MO, NC, NM, OH, OR, SD, TN, VA, VT, WI] • Lighting design/specification criteria: 22% [AK, MO, NC, NM, UT, VA, WA] • Information about lighting technologies: 6% [AK, VT] • Evidence for the benefit of lighting: 38% [AK, AZ, ID, MO, NC, ND, OH, SD, UT, WA, WI, WV] • Sources of funding to install lighting: 59% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, KY, ME, NC, NM, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY] • Other - Please specify: 38% [AZ, DE, IA, MI, MN, NM, OR, PA, SD, TX, VT, WA] Responses: – All requests considered, to determine if warrants are met [DE] – Availability of electricity [AZ] – Funds for installation are pretty easy to get, but funds for operation and manpower for maintenance are bigger issues since TxDOT operates and maintains most safety lighting in the state [TX] – None – None of the above [IA, MI] – Per state policy locals maintain the lighting [NM] – What to do for very low volume intersections on high-speed highways [SD] – When PennDOT pays for install, local govt pays for maintenance. Lighting is based on bal- ance of safety, PennDOT budget, and local govt maintenance budget [PA] – Would be nice to have more concrete information regarding the “efficacy” of beacon type systems, where other criteria did not justify a conventional lighting system [WA] – Maintenance is always an issue when more lighting is added [MN] – Ownership/maintenance responsibility [OR] – Sources of maintenance funds [VT] Section 5: Lighting Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Issues Q16: What organization(s) have installed isolated rural intersection lighting in your agency’s jurisdiction (select all that apply)? • State DOT: 79% [AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, SC, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY] • Contractor to state DOT: 72% [AL, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY]

Survey Questionnaire and Results 55   • Local municipality (e.g., town, village, county): 72% [AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, HI, IA, IN, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WY] • Electric utility: 63% [AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, IN, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, PA, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY] • Other - Please specify: 5% [DE, IN] Responses: – Utilities and municipalities at request/designed by DelDOT [DE] – Lighting by developers [IN] Q17: What entity(ies) own the isolated rural intersection lighting in your agency’s jurisdiction (select all that apply)? • State DOT: 86% [AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY] • Local municipality: 74% [AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WY] • Electric utility: 56% [CT, DE, FL, GA, IN, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, OH, OK, PA, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY] • Other - Please specify: 20% [AZ, FL, IA, IN, MI, NC, OR, WA] Responses: – State DOT if within DOT’s system [AZ] – Developer [IN] – Dependent on DOT/Municipal agreement [MI] – Generally owned by the utility, but there may be cases where a municipality has installed this type of lighting [NC] – Generally the state DOT is responsible for lighting outside of incorporated Cities and the Cities are responsible for lighting inside their city limits. There are locations where the State DOT has service agreements with the utility to provide lighting on utility poles [WA] – It depends upon the location, but FDOT does not generally maintain [FL] – Depends on the location as to who owns the installation [IA] – Per inter-governmental agreement [OR] Q18: Who is responsible for maintenance of isolated rural intersection lighting in your agency’s jurisdiction (select all that apply)? • State DOT: 79% [AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY] • Local municipality: 81% [AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WY] • Electric utility: 58% [CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, OH, OK, PA, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY] • Other - Please specify: 19% [CA, FL, IA, IN, MI, OR, SD, WA] Responses: – Where there is no incorporated municipality, the nearest area office takes care of mainte- nance (generally hiring an electrical contractor for most things) [SD] – Primarily by hired contractor [IN] – County is responsible at intersections with county roads [IA] – Dependent on DOT/Municipality agreement [MI] – Electrical utility is only responsible for locations that have a service agreement [WA] – It depends upon the location, but FDOT does not generally maintain [FL] – Per inter-governmental agreement [OR] – Shared costs [CA]

56 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections Q19: Has your agency used solar/photovoltaic or other alternative power source(s) for isolated rural intersection lighting? • Yes - Please specify: 29% [FL, GA, MD, ME, MI, MN, ND, NV, OK, TX, UT, WI] Responses: – About 50 beacon lights [ND] – GDOT is at the beginning stages of installing solar lighting systems [GA] – Just beginning to test [MN] – More than 10 locations at statewide used solar power sources [UT] – Pending the districts requests for maintenance, theft, vandalism, power, etc. [NV] – Solar [MI] – There is no electrical service at some intersections [FL] – Used solar on a couple of pilot projects [MD] – We’ve tried it in some remote locations as a pilot project but it is rare right now [TX] – It is under design [ME] • No: 71% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MO, MS, MT, NC, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] Q20: What determines the need in your agency to replace/repair isolated rural intersection lighting (select all that apply)? • Burned out light: 93% [AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] • Damaged/knocked down pole: 95% [AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] • Bent or broken mast arm: 79% [AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV] • Broken luminaire: 90% [AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV] • Light output too dim (e.g., lumen depreciation): 38% [AK, AL, CA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, TX, UT, VA] • Dirty luminaire: 26% [AK, CA, GA, MA, MD, MO, NJ, NM, OK, TX, UT] • Complaint from local municipality or public (e.g., light is glaring, wattage too high/low): 71% [AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV] • Agency policy: 14% [AK, OH, TX, UT, VA, WA] • Other - Please specify: 26% [AR, AZ, FL, IN, MI, MO, NM, OR, TN, WA, WY] Responses: – Arkansas DOT does not maintain lighting assets. A city or a county is responsible for oper- ation and maintenance [AR] – Dirt is addressed through routine maintenance [WA] – LED Upgrade- 10-year replacement schedule [WY] – Policy change (HPS to LED) [MO] – Public Safety [MI] – Quarterly night inspections [AZ] – TDOT Does not maintain lights [TN] – The maintainers are typically responsible for upgrading luminaires unless there is an FDOT reconstruction project [FL] – By TM contracts [IN]

Survey Questionnaire and Results 57   – Locals maintain [NM] – Per maintenance schedule [OR] Q21: Has your agency used adaptive control strategies (e.g., reducing light output after midnight, using motion sensors, etc.) for any isolated rural intersection lighting? • Yes - Please specify: 5% [ID, KY] Responses: – One location for a pilot [KY] – Only as a trial thing [ID] • No: 95% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] Q22: Has your agency ever removed or overseen the removal of isolated rural intersection lighting without planning to replace it? • Yes - Please specify why: 5% [MT, WA] Responses: – WSDOT has been going through previous lighting practices and removing extraneous lighting which does not contribute to critical areas, resulting in a reduction in the number of fixtures at a location. WSDOT has not removed intersection lighting in its entirety if it was already in place [WA] – If geometry is changing, and if full lighting is being installed with new project, such as installing a roundabout [MT] • No: 95% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV, WY] Q23: Does your agency track the outcomes/impacts of isolated rural intersection lighting? • Yes (then please answer Q24): 29% [AK, AL, AZ, DE, GA, MI, MN, OK, UT, VA, VT, WV] • No: 71% [AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, WA, WY] Q24: If you answered Yes to Q23, which outcomes/impacts of isolated rural intersection lighting does your agency track (select all that apply)? • Overall crashes: 58% [AK, AL, DE, GA, OK, VA, WV] • Nighttime crashes (or night/day crash ratio): 75% [AK, AL, AZ, DE, OK, UT, VA, VT, WV] • Lower vehicle speeds: 8% [AK] • Decreased (or increased) complaints from public or local municipality: 42% [AZ, UT, VA, VT, WV] • Other - Please specify: 33% [DE, GA, MI, MN] Responses: – Only intersections that were part of HEP study [DE] – Public safety [MI] – We are just at the beginning stages of monitoring this for tunnels for daytime lighting [GA] – The Safety section will likely do this, but has not yet [MN] Section 6: Costs and Economics Q25: How often does your agency perform an economic analysis before installing isolated rural intersection lighting? • Never: 37% [AL, AR, AZ, CT, HI, IA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NM, TN, WA, WY] • Rarely: 29% [DE, GA, ID, KY, MD, ME, MS, ND, NJ, OK, OR, SC]

58 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections • Sometimes: 22% [AK, CO, MT, NV, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT] • Often: 12% [CA, FL, IN, PA, WV] Q26: Does your agency attempt to determine the economic value of reduced crashes or other benefits of isolated rural intersection lighting? • Yes - Please specify: 38% [AZ, FL, ID, IN, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, OR, PA, SD, UT, VA, VT, WV] Responses: – B/C ratio [VT] – B/C ratio > 1 [AZ] – Division’s Memorandum [VA] – For safety funded projects, must have a b/c ratio greater than one [MT] – Has been done in general using HCM values for road safety audits [MN] – If it was being installed as part of a safety project we would attempt to quantify the antici- pated safety benefits/crash reduction [MO] – May do a benefit/cost calculation using the Highway Safety Manual methodologies [SD] – Roundabouts require lighting, 4-way intersection, lighting is installed based on balance of safety and budget [PA] – Using highway safety manual for guidance [UT] – Traffic investigation consider crash reduction factor with the new lighting [OR] – Using crash prediction software to evaluate the benefit [ID] • No: 62% [AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, IA, KY, MA, MD, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, WA, WY] Q27: Does your agency consider the economic value of crash reductions in any benefit/cost or life cycle cost analyses? • Yes - Please specify how: 45% [AK, DE, FL, ID, IN, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NM, OR, PA, SD, UT, VA, VT, WV] Responses: – B/C must be >1 [VT] – Benefit takes into crash severity and applies appropriate cost/incident [SD] – CMFs are sometimes considered [DE] – Division’s Memorandum [VA] – For the planning and project scoping process [OR] – Other: We quantify the anticipated crash reduction over the service life of the safety improvement via the methodologies outlined in the Highway Safety Manual. A crash cost, based on severity, is then applied to this crash reduction in order to perform a benefit/cost analysis. We’ve developed Missouri specific crash costs based on FHWA’s Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/fhwasa17071.pdf) [MO] – Part of HSIP process for selecting sites [MT] – Roundabouts require lighting, 4-way intersection, lighting is installed based on balance of safety and budget [PA] – Some intersections (e.g., signalized with pedestrians) are justified based on past analyses [FL] – This a mitigation in our state safety strategies [NM] – Using highway safety manual for guidance [UT] – We have done this several times [WV] – Highway safety manual [ME] • No: 55% [AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, GA, HI, IA, KY, MD, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, WA, WY]

Survey Questionnaire and Results 59   Q28: If assessed by your agency, how often does isolated rural intersection lighting achieve a net benefit compared to its costs? • Never: 32% [AL, CA, GA, HI, MD, MO, NV, OH, OK] • Rarely: 21% [DE, ID, KY, ME, SD, VT] • Sometimes: 21% [AK, NC, SC, TN, VA] • Often: 18% [AZ, FL, IN, MT, OR] • Always: 7% [MI, WY] Q29: What source(s) of funding has your agency used to install isolated rural intersection lighting (select all that apply)? • State funds: 95% [AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] • Federal funds: 83% [AK, AL, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY] • Local funds: 64% [AL, CA, CT, DE, GA, HI, IN, KY, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA] • Other - Please specify: 10% [AR, MN, MT, NV] Responses: – HSIP funding (dedicated state / federal obligation) [MT] – None for intersections. However, if rural roundabouts are included as rural intersections, then state, federal, and local funds are available [AR] – Safety funds, could be state or federal [MN] – Pending the project funding source [NV] Section 7: Exemplary Isolated Rural Intersection Lighting Projects and Alternatives Q30: Are you aware of any novel, successful or unique examples of isolated rural intersection lighting within your agency’s jurisdiction? • Yes: 14% [AZ, MI, NM, OK, UT, VT, WY] • No: 86% [AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KY, MA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV] Q31: Are you aware of any novel, successful or unique examples of alternatives to isolated rural intersection lighting, either instead of lighting, or used in combination with lighting? • Yes: 19% [IN, ME, MI, MO, TN, UT, VT, WY] • No: 81% [AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VA, WA, WV] (Respondents answering Yes to Q30 and Q31 were contacted for further details.)