The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 44-59

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 44... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Survey Questionnaire and Results 45 – Federal Highways (FHWA) warrant analysis worksheet [CT] Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... 46 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections – All roundabouts are to be lit [FL] – All roundabouts receive lighting [MT] Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... Survey Questionnaire and Results 47 Q9: 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 other rural locations? • Yes (If online please include URL or brief description) Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... 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) Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... Survey Questionnaire and Results 49 • Illuminance(s) from IES RP-8 (Recommended Practice for Roadway Lighting) Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... 50 Lighting Practices for Isolated Rural Intersections Responses: – All types based on roadway characteristics [ND] Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Survey Questionnaire and Results 51 Responses: – 1 [AK] – 1 beacon light per intersection, rest whatever needed to provide adequate lighting and uniformity [ND] Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... 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] Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... 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] Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 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] Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... Survey Questionnaire and Results 55 • Local municipality (e.g., town, village, county) Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 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? Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... Survey Questionnaire and Results 57 – Locals maintain [NM] – Per maintenance schedule [OR] Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 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] Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... 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] Read the entire page →

From page 44...

... 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.