Q1: LED Technology for New Q2: Retrofitting of Existing...

1 5

27

Q1: LED Technology for New Installations

No

PilotTesting/Evaluation

Yes

8

4

15

6

Q2: Retrofitting of Existing Luminaires?

Comprehensive Retrofit

Retrofitting throughattrition

No Retrofitting

Evaluating ComprehensiveRetrofitting

2

6

25

Q3: Using ESCO Contract for Comprehensive LED Conversion?

Implemented

Considering/EvaluatingESCO or P3 Project

No

2

10

21

Q4: Using Lighting Controls?

ComprehensiveImplementation

Pilot Locations Only

No

# State Q1: Is your agency using LED or other energy-efficient lighting technologies for new luminaires? If so, what technology are you using and for what applications (conventional poles, high mast, sign lighting, etc.)?

Q2: Has your agency undertaken a comprehensive conversion of existing luminaires to LED or other energy-efficient technologies? If so, have you had any negative consequences?

Q3: Has your agency engaged the services of an ESCO contractor for luminaire replacement? If so, how far along are you in the process and how would you describe your experience so far?

Q4: Is your agency using a Lighting Controls system? If so, was it procured through the ESCO contract or some other means? How would you describe your experience with the system?

Q5: If your agency does have experience with using an ESCO contractor for luminaire replacement and/or with Lighting Controls, please provide a name and contact information of someone we can contact for more information.

1. AK LED is allowed under a low lifecycle cost approach.

No comprehensive conversion. No No No

2. AL LED for conventional and high mast poles. No, just designing all future projects with LED. No No Not Applicable

3. AR Yes, we have moved to using LED on new Roadway Lighting projects. The poles types are conventional and high mast.

No. We have not programed a project to upgrade Roadway lighting to LED. We have completed two statewide projects to update all incandescent signal lamps to LED working with Arkansas Energy Office.

No No. To date, we have not provided a remote Lighting Control systems for Roadway lights.

N/A

4. AZ ADOT is evaluating LED luminaires for pole, high-mast, and tunnel lighting. LED illumination is under test at several locations on the state highway system, and LED retrofits are underway at one tunnel (Queen Creek) and planned for another tunnel (Mule Pass).

Current ADOT lighting inventory is predominantly HPS. No conversion yet except in limited spot locations. ADOT currently only has a standard specification for conventional pole lighting. ADOT used luminaires with lower (3000 degrees K) color rendering at locations where the road was in close proximity to astronomical observatories.

ADOT may be looking into a public-private partnership to replace luminaires systemwide, or by facility (such as the I-10 Deck Park Tunnel, which alone comprises a notable percentage of ADOT's energy use budget). Don't know if ESCO has been a party to those discussions. I'm copying Karim Rashid (signals and lighting operations engineer) and Mark Poppe (systems maintenance engineer) for their input.

ADOT is testing two Lighting Controls systems. The City of Tuscon is in the process of implementing city-wide Lighting Controls.

Karim Rashid

5. CT For Lighting retrofit applications: We retrofit existing HID to LED type fixtures when and where minimum recommended light levels and uniformity ratios can be achieved. For New lighting system designs: We prepare designs that specify conventional poles. The spacing between poles and fixtures mounting heights are designed in order to achieve minimum recommended light levels and uniformity ratios. Connecticut has a very limited amount of high mast lighting. We plan to retrofit existing high mast HID lights withLED high mast lights within future highway lighting improvement projects. Connecticut does not maintain sign lighting.

CTDOT is in the process of converting to LED type roadway lighting but only when and where we are able to determine that LED lights will be able to achieve minimum recommended light levels and uniformity ratios. The first LED fixtures had a few surge suppressors blow. That problem has been addressed and there have been no other negative consequences since.

CTDOT has not engaged the services of an Energy Service Company (ESCO)/contractor for luminaire replacement.

CTDOT lighting systems are typically limited to master photocell control for roadway lighting systems.

Not Applicable

6. DE We have been doing pilot installations of LED, No No No No






first in a parking lot and more recently at select other locations, varying from small intersections to the Dover Toll plaza (stadium style lighting) as well as at least one high mast installation. We are in the process of finalizing a report that compares HPS to LED and reviews life-cycle costs. Potentially (likely?) we will adopt LED as our standard sometime after the report is finalized.

7. ID Idaho currently installs LED luminaires for all roadway lighting applications: 40’-50’ poles, high mast, sign and tunnel lighting.

Yes, Idaho has been installing LED luminaires on all roadway construction projects that contain lighting for the last 4 years as well as retrofitting existing lighting installations through a combination of construction projects and maintenance forces. Feedback has been positive, there have been no negative consequences to this point.

We have not used the ESCO model for our conversion.

We are in the process of installing our first lighting control system at an interchange; this system is not being installed through an ESCO contract. The project should be finished the end of October, I will have more feedback then.

You can contact Ethan Griffiths 208-334-8239 for more information.

8. IL Yes, IDOT is installing LED roadway luminaires. So far LED luminaires have only been deployed on a few projects so a limited number are installed and they are all horizontal mount (cobraheads). A small high mast project is being designed.

IDOT is currently considering that possibility. A Request for Information is being prepared so our process is only at the beginning.

A pilot project with 127 LED luminaires and a lighting control system is in construction and should be operational next year. The Request for Information will investigate the possibility of adding lighting controls as part of the conversion.

9. IN We have been demoing new lighting technologies at 9 or 10 test sites and we have opened up our construction specifications to allow these technologies. The first installations under the normal construction process will occur soon. [The technology is] primarily LED but also some plasma and metal halide for both towers and conventional poles. To date we have not tested underpass; INDOT no longer provides sign lighting.

No, not yet but we are considering as a potential P3 initiative.

No, but we may if the P3 initiative goes through.

No, although our specifications require photocell receptacles in case we decide to do so in the future.

10. IA We are using LED for all new lighting being installed except high mast.

It is in the planning stages, expect to start replacing existing lights with LED in the year.

No No






11. KS KDOT is currently using LED lighting as a part of new construction, and retrofitting (where requested) HMT, and Conventional lighting. We sponsored a report done by the University of Kansas Professor, Hongyi Cai, Ph.D., that produced the obvious cost savings (maintenance/energy) in LED lighting. The Manual can be found here: http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kdotlib/KU156.pdf

We have not started a comprehensive conversion, and LED is installed only at the request of the districts, however, it is my intention to make a push to utilize this technology. There has been no negative response or consequence at this time.

To my knowledge, an ESCO contractor has never been used.

KDOT has not used a control system as of yet.

N/A

12. KY We are using LED fixtures for new installations of both high-mast and conventional lighting. We are using a 4000K fixture for conventional and 5000K for high-mast (specifications attached).

We have yet to schedule a comprehensive conversion of existing installations.

We just initiated a two-year research project on LED-lighting that will include the development of a business case for a future ESCO contract. We had a similar project for LED retrofit of traffic signal displays almost a decade ago.

We have two installations with lighting control systems. They are both Roam from Holophane. We do not have much experience with the systems. One is installed on a relatively new LED system. The other is installed on an older high-pressure sodium installation, so there is limited opportunity/need for the control system.

n/a

13. LA Yes, for conventional poles (low mount), and for high mast poles. The projects are under construction and no in-use date is available.

No. LED lighting is still an emerging technology. The negative and unintended consequences are not fully known. Example: Our spec limits color temperature to 4000 Kelvin and we are considering lowering that to 3000 Kelvin. Not enough data in yet to initiate the change. I would not want a wholesale implementation at 4000 until further data and experience are available.

no We have had inquiries about control systems mostly for the purpose of maintenance tracking. None of the owners are too eager about turning any lights off.

Louisiana does not own or operate interstate or state highway lighting. If an owner is interested in advanced lighting controllers or lighting maintenance systems we would be as helpful as we can with installing such systems for them. The legal issues with occasionally turning some lights off or dimming them below standard illumination values are not settled as far as I can tell. On the other hand the value of a luminaire maintenance package that reports which lights are out and how many hours each has been on would probably pay for itself. Although I have not

http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kdotlib/KU156.pdf

http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kdotlib/KU156.pdf





Q5: If your agency does have experience with using an ESCO contractor for luminaire replacement and/or with Lighting Controls, please provide a name and contact information of someone we can contact for more information. done the math. The choice of any such system is left up to the owner and no particular system is mandated by Louisiana. We are not prepared to mandate any proprietary systems.

14. MA The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is utilizing Light Emitting Diode(LED) Technology for all Roadway Lighting projects. Applications include 40’ – 50’ Lighting poles as well as High Mast Lighting Poles.

At this time MassDOT has not begun a comprehensive conversion to LED Lighting Technology.

MassDOT has not utilized an ESCO Contractor for Luminaire replacement.

MassDOT has not utilized a Lighting Controls System.

15. ME Yes. Conventional and high mast Yes. We have had a lot of failures of new LED devices. While they are under warranty, this was done under a procurement contract, so our staff spent significant time replacing the replacements. Most of our issues are happening where we have electrical services are 480 volts. The drivers were having issues with voltage deviations at the higher voltages. Significantly less problems at 240.

No No

16. MI Yes, AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide, All Exterior Roadway Lighting.

Yes, no No No, not cost effective for roadway lighting

n/a

17. MN MnDOT is now using LED luminaires as a standard. We have an LED replacement luminaire for our 400W HPS, 250W HPS, and underpass luminaires. We are working on getting an LED replacement for our high mast systems. We are getting very close to having an LED luminaire that can meet the same light levels at the inplace spacing as our HPS high mast luminaires. MnDOT does very little sign lighting. We will have to find an LED luminaires for that use, but it has not been high priority at this time.

MnDOT has been doing a significant change out of HPS luminaires to LED luminaires. We have not had any major negative consequences, but as with anything new we have found a few things that need to be addressed. By the end of 2016 our Metro District, which has approximately 2/3 of our luminaires, will be changed to LED. Our Greater Minnesota districts should be around 50% or more changed out by the end of the year.

MnDOT has not used an ESCO contractor for our luminaire replacement. I believe that one of our districts did use an ESCO to make efficiency changes to our building systems. I could find a contact if you are interested in their experience with an ESCO in that scenario.

MnDOT has not used a lighting control system to date, however our Metro District is installing a few systems to test. All except our original LED luminaires do have the 7 pin connectors and dimmable drivers so they could be changed in the future, but I do not anticipate that we will make a widespread move to controls any time soon.

18. MO No No No No

19. MS We are using LED lighting technologies on a limited basis – utilizing high mast and low mast

We have not implemented a comprehensive/statewide conversion plan at this

We have not used an ESCO contractor per se; however, the work done by our consultant

We are implementing a lighting controls system on one of our






poles. time. may be considered on par with that of an ESCO contractor.

projects; this is currently in the plan development stage.

20. NC Starting on January 2015, NCDOT started using LED luminaires for roadway lighting design work. These include cobrahead style luminaires for single-arm, twin-arm, high mast luminaires and underpass lighting luminaires.

NCDOT is in the process of signing an Energy Service Agreement with Brady Trane as part of the Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance Contracting project. The LED lighting equipment upgrade construction work is anticipated to start July 2017, and it will last approximately 16-months.

NCDOT has engaged with Brady-Trane as the ESCO contractor for the statewide LED upgrade. The Investment Grade Audit for the project is currently under the review by NCDOT stakeholders, and NCDOT’s Third Party consultant (Celtic Energy). Our experience is mixed partly because one of the major goals in our energy savings project is to catch up deferred statewide lighting maintenance. NCDOT/Brady has set aside a separate funding amount within the project for the statewide lighting deferred maintenance, but this amount is an estimate and it may not address all the needs. The other important issue is the routine maintenance of the lighting systems within the duration of the project that has not yet been determined.

NCDOT/Brady has just completed proof of concepts for the CIMCON lighting control system. The functionality of the CIMCON control system is satisfactory as they will provide basic monitor and control functions. Most likely, CIMCON controls will be implemented with the project, as an alternate lighting control system is not available for evaluation at the present time.

Paul K. Chan, PE Lighting & Electrical Squad Leader Roadway Design Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation 919 707 6227 office 919 250 4036 fax [email protected]

21. NE The Nebraska Department of Roads is not presently using LED or other energy-efficient lighting technologies on Nebraska’s highway system. We are currently in our final phase of putting together our LED Specifications and LED Lighting Manual but have yet to begin the process of determining which LED Luminaires will be on our approved products list. We are planning on utilizing the LED technology for applications on conventional roadway poles and rest area lighting at this time and foresee the use on high-mast applications as soon as determinations can be made and the technology advances more.

No. At this time we are not planning on a comprehensive conversion but will be adding the technology with new projects and as replacements for failed units.

No, we have had no contact with ESCO.

No.

22. NH I’m not responsible for lighting; however, I don’t believe we have undertaken a comprehensive conversion of existing luminaires. I do believe that we have used more energy efficient luminaires in some locations.






23. NJ NJ is using LED for conventional highway lighting and high mast lighting on a project by project test basis. We have switched to LED for most new overhead sign panel lighting.

No No No

24. NM Yes, we are using LED for roadway lighting, high mast.

No conversion attempt. We will specify LED for all new projects.

No No No

25. NY LEDs. Depends on the region. Some are installing high mast lighting on new installs. I’ve heard LED’s are being installed on new roadway construction but have not read the details. Retrofits have not taken place on any large scale, just individual municipalities but no retrofits from the DOT side have been implemented.

No, we are currently evaluating how best to standardize conversion and thereafter tariff agreements with utilities so that luminaires can remain utility owned and maintained. A joint project between multiple agencies is being implemented on Central Avenue in Albany NY in the Village of Colonie in partnership with NYSERDA, and other agencies with leadership by RPI’s Lighting Research Center and Creighton Manning Engineering. Next steps are luminaire selection for public evaluation and then installation on the roadway based on public feedback. After installation, public feedback will be taken for 1 year prior to closing the project and then report out. Study website is available here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-d-repository/C-14-12-Final%20Report_June%202015.pdf

No No. Also it is not in the project scope of the Central Ave install

NA

26. PA PennDOT has begun using LED luminaires for conventional poles. In the near future PennDOT will be implementing high mast, sign lighting, and wall pack luminaires that use LED.

At this time, implementation is on a project-by-project basis.

PennDOT has not engaged the services of an ESCO contractor for any replacement. PennDOT was contacted by ESCO type groups as part of a potential public-private-partnership, however at that time the effort was deemed to not be beneficial long term for PennDOT.

Future projects will be required to utilize a remote monitoring and control system. PennDOT has one pilot interchange that uses this type of system, and this system has been useful in reporting a large outage that occurred when a new guide rail post struck a conduit. Additionally, this system has been useful in documenting the energy consumption and burn hours of LED luminaires that were installed, helping to show the

Dave Rosenberger, LC, P.E. | Highway Lighting Consultant Phone: 717-772-3078 [email protected]

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-d-repository/C-14-12-Final%20Report_June%202015.pdf



mailto:[email protected]






energy savings over the previous HPS lighting.

27. SD Yes, LEDs for conventional, under-bridge, walkway, and high mast.

No No No No

28. TN Tennessee is just beginning to revise our lighting specs and we have deployed one interchange improvement with LEDs.

29. VA VDOT has developed standard special provisions for LED lighting for conventional light poles, underbridge lights, and high mast light poles. To date we do not have special provisions for tunnel lights or for sign lighting. (With sign lighting, one concern is how to determine appropriate luminaire spacing and output depending on sheeting type.) Most VDOT Districts are installing LEDs for construction projects involving new lighting poles. VDOT’s specifications were based in part on this research conducted by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute for VDOT:

Not at this time. See response to question #3. Yes. VDOT initially selected an ESCO contractor (Trane) to audit building energy usage, however this effort has morphed into focusing on roadway lighting. VDOT is in discussions with the contractor to do comprehensive statewide replacement of all conventional pole, offset pole, underbridge, and high mast light pole luminaires. At this point Trane has completed an inventory of existing luminaires and VDOT is evaluating the modeled long-term energy savings and implementation parameters. Some key challenges include existing locations with deferred maintenance issues (electrical shorts, pole structural deficiencies) and meeting current illumination standards whenever possible given the existing pole spacing/height/location. Many of VDOT’s lights were installed decades ago and may not meet current IESNA requirements, including existing offset lights with tilted luminaires.

Currently VDOT is undertaking small-scale in-house testing/evaluation of Lighting Controls systems. The ESCO contractor has proposed incorporating Lighting Controls into their contract, due in part to the additional energy savings that may be possible with such systems in place.

Marc Lipschultz, P.E., PTOE Sr. Traffic Engineer [email protected] Mansour Mahban State Electrical Engineer [email protected]

30. WI WisDOT started to use LED on improvement projects in 2014. HPS fixtures have not been allowed since the beginning of 2016.

We have received some comments about color inconsistency between HPS and LED.

No WisDOT has been testing a remote lighting control system at a park & ride. The project is not through an ESCO. We are early in the process but have received good feedback so far.

N/A

31. WS WSDOTs current Design Policy allows for both LED and Adaptive Control Technologies. We are using LED for conventional poles and high mast. In general terms we are removing sign lighting

YES 3,600 converted or being converted out of about 60,000 fixtures. [Negative consequences:] Inrush driver current –

We have one statewide [ESCO] project under construction (see attached document) and another facility oriented project that has completed the audit phase. Experience has

4a) Yes 4b) ESCO and Other means

Ted Bailey, P.E. | Engineering Manager, Major Electrical Systems and Operational Initiatives | Traffic

http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/16-r6.pdf

http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/16-r6.pdf









rather than converting to LED. We don’t have any LED tunnel lighting, but are continuing to evaluate alternatives.

need for slow blow fuses, manufacturers are not all best of class, issues with 480V power were just addressed recently, adaptive lighting system struggles with a central photo-cell (group control), other issues could be discussed via a conference call.

been positive, although agency business processes are still adapting to “performance contracting”.

4c) System was first installed in April 2013. Positive until recently, issues are being address and controls company has been very helpful. More detail could be discussed via a conference call.

Operations Division | Washington State Department of Transportation 360-705-7286 | [email protected] | www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Traffic

32. WV Yes, we have been using LED lighting technology for several years for new luminaires. We now require the utilization of LED luminaires for pole, high-mast, navigation, wall-pack, tunnel and sign lighting.

Yes, we have taken initiative to convert all existing HPS high-mast luminaires to LED luminaires. We recently completed phase 1 of a 3 phase LED Lighting conversation. The phase 1 conversation included the replacement of 620 HPS high mast fixtures with first generation LED fixtures (Holophane). We received positive public response to this project. We are continuing with phase 2 of the LED lighting conversation.

No, we have not engaged in the services of an ESCCO contractor. In “light” of the guarantees that you are receiving, that may be something we consider in the future.

No, our agency is not using a Lighting Control System at this time.

N/A

33. WY We had Chevron change out all types of lighting to LED on a very similar energy contract.

98 % were converted. No issues. No. We had a one year parts and labor warranty post installation.

Only for our tunnel lighting systems. We could not make the communication commitment for conventional lighting.

N/A

LED Roadway Lighting Reform ProgramLuminaire highway lighting The Washington State Department of Transportation is replacing several luminaries in Thurston, Island, King, Snohomish, Skagit, Thurston and Whatcom counties with new, energy-efficient light-emitting-diode (LED) luminaires. In addition, some lights will be removed as part of an overall new approach to lighting highways. The estimated $4.6 million project provides significant financial, maintenance and environmental efficiency savings through the use of innovative project delivery, financing and contracting tools. By leveraging utility savings along with grants, utility rebates and capital dollars, this project will be funded within existing operating budgets.

This new approach has several benefits:• Reduced energy bills• Reduced maintenance needs and costs, allowing money to be directed to other priority activities• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions• Ability to remotely adjust lighting levels (in Olympia area) depending on conditions

A new approach to lightingAfter several years of research on the benefits of lighting and its connection to crash reduction, WSDOT has adjusted its approach to lighting, in essence rethinking why we light. This new way to look at lighting focused on lighting’s actual role in crash reduction.

WSDOT researchers and nationally renowned safety research professionals from Penn State University developed models and used tools that incorporate human behavior research and site specific criteria. This research has been presented to multiple audiences regionally, nationally and internationally. The full report was published this spring and is available upon request. While some lighting may be reduced, other areas such as limited access roadway exits and entrances, pedestrian crossing and tunnels remain lighting priorities.

The Statewide LED Roadway Lighting Conversion and Removal project will convert 1,974 existing lights to LED technology. In addition, 505 lights will be removed from the highway system. Locations were determined using the new research and lighting standards.

Lighting costsWSDOT spends close to $3.8 million statewide each year on roadway lighting utility costs.The annual life cycle preservation replacement budget is $3 million with an additional unfunded need of $5 million. Given the significant life cycle costs of existing and expanding roadway lighting systems, WSDOT began investigating new, cost-effective methods of lighting, including LED and adaptive lighting control systems.

WSDOT is using the state’s Energy Saving Performance Contracting process through the Department of

PROJECT COST SAVINGS ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITSIN ONE YEAR, THE NEW LIGHTING SYSTEM WILL:• Reduce annual energy usage by 2.6

million kWh (kilowatt-hours), saving $217,554 in utility costs

• Reduce annual maintenance costs by $36,900

• Reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by over 993 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

TOTAL 15 YEAR NET REDUCTIONS: • 14,898 metric tons of carbon dioxide

equivalent• 39 million killowatt-hours (kWh)

reduction in energy use • $3.63 million in reduced utility costs• $479,700 in reduced maintenance

costs. For the first 12 years the savings will be used to make bond payments.

SEPTEMBER 2016

KENT

RENTON

MONROE

LYNDEN

HOQUIAM

EDMONDS

ABERDEEN

LAKEWOODPUYALLUP

BELLEVUE

FERNDALE

BREMERTON

ANACORTES

OAK HARBOR

FEDERAL WAY

EAST WENATCHEE

TACOMA

OLYMPIA

SEATTLE

EVERETT

MONTESANOELLENSBURG

COUPEVILLE

BELLINGHAM

PORT ORCHARD

PORT ANGELES

MOUNT VERNON

PORT TOWNSEND

FRIDAY HARBOR

Roy

Yelm

Fife

Lacey

BrierIndex

Forks

Lyman

Sumas

OrtingDuPont

Roslyn

Ruston

SeaTacBurien

Entiat

Duvall

Blaine

Buckley

Pacific

Redmond

Poulsbo

Langley

Everson

Westport KittitasTumwater

Wilkeson

Cle ElumEnumclaw

CashmereIssaquah

Kirkland

Gold Bar

Mukilteo

Stanwood

WinthropHamiltonConcrete

Carbonado

Covington

Carnation

Sammamish

SkykomishShoreline

Snohomish

Arlington

La Conner

Snoqualmie

Steilacoom

Gig Harbor

Des Moines

North Bend

Mill Creek

Marysville

Darrington

Burlington

Bonney Lake

Rock Island

Leavenworth

Ocean Shores

Lake Stevens

Black Diamond

Granite Falls

Bainbridge Island

LEGENDLED lights arebeing addedand/or somelights removed

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA(4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711. Title VI Notice to Public: It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7082.

Enterprise Services for this project. By leveraging utility savings along with state and federal grants, utility rebates and a certificate of participation this project will be funded within existing resources. The projected annual savings will be greater than the debt service payments.

Adaptive Lighting ControlMotorists on US 101 near Olympia have already experienced this remote way to control lighting based on conditions and time of day. Functioning like a high-tech dimmer switch, the system lets operators optimize roadway lighting by decreasing or increasing the number of lights providing lighting only when needed.

Started as a pilot project in April 2013, the system realized energy savings of more than 68 percent along with a projected 15-year utility and preventative maintenance

savings of $345,000.

The Statewide LED Lighting Conversion and Removal project will expand this system to lights along I-5 in Lacey, Tumwater and Olympia in Thurston County. The new lights added in other counties will have the capability to add adaptive lighting control at a later date.

SafetySafety remains our top priority as an agency and these lighting decisions were made with that in mind. The LED lights to be installed provide a whiter light that improves visibility for drivers. The adaptive control technology (see below) also allows crews to remotely dim or change lighting as conditions warrant.

WSDOT and Penn State University lighting research are using a risk-based approach to:• Optimize roadway lighting to the fullest extent possible without significant impact to crashes and mobility

• Convert remaining roadway lights to high efficiency LED technology while monitoring driver response.

In addition to comprehensive research, each affected area in Washington was individually evaluated by regional crews to identify any special needs. Adjustments to lighting plans were made accordingly to take into account pedestrian, driver and community needs.

Work starts: Spring 2016

Work complete: Spring 2017

16-09-0375

Before LED lighting After LED lighting

MORE INFORMATION Ted Bailey, PE Traffic Operations Business Manager 360-705-7286 [email protected]

© 2015 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. All rights reserved.

Analysis of Energy Efficient Highway Lighting Retrofits

SPR Project C‐14‐12

Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteProject Sponsor: New York State Department of Transportation

May 20, 2015


Project Outline

1. Document Existing Lighting Practices2. Southern State Parkway (SSP), Central Avenue

(arterial)3. Document Traffic and Pedestrian Use Patterns4. Develop Baseline Lighting Models5. Evaluate Retrofit Options6. Economic Analysis7. Discussion and Recommendations

2


1. Existing Lighting Practices

NYSDOT policy on lighting (1979) sets warranting criteria for lighting using factors that are similar to those presently specified by AASHTO (2005)› Traffic volume› Nighttime accident rate› Spacing of interchanges

Highway Design Manual (Chapter 12, 1995) refers to AASHTO (1984) guide (updated in 2005), which is based on IES (1977, 1983, 2000, 2014) light level recommendations that have not changed substantially

3


1a. Document Existing Lighting

Southern State Parkway (SSP west section)

Leftmost Lane

4


1b. Document Existing Lighting

Southern State Parkway (SSP east section)

Rightmost Lane

5


1c. Document Existing Lighting

Central Avenue (NYSDOT section)Sidewalk

6


2a. Document Nighttime Traffic Use Patterns

7

Total AADT: 80,000‐81,000 Total AADT: 76,000‐80,000

Total AADT: 25,000‐43,000

• NYSDOT data used for total AADT and for nighttime parkway data

• Nighttime arterial data measured by project team in cooperation with Region 1


2b. Document Nighttime Pedestrian Use Patterns

Pedestrian use in peak hours of darkness categorized by low (≤10 pedestrians/hr), medium (<10 and ≤100 pedestrians/hr) or high (>100 pedestrians/hr) as documented by Creighton Manning (2014) Vly Road: medium Wolf Road/I‐87 ramp: medium Northway Mall West/Colonie Center: high Northway Mall East/Colonie Center: medium Fuller Road: medium Nicholas Drive: low Willow Avenue: medium Lanci Lane: medium Jupiter Lane: medium Parkwood Drive: medium Reber Street: medium Colonie Plaza: medium New Karner Road: medium

8


3a. Develop Baseline Models

9

Southern State Parkway‐West Southern State Parkway‐East

Calculated levels are consistent with

measured illuminances

West: average 7.6 lux, min. 2.1 lux, ave/min

3.7

East: average 6.6 lux, min. 2.9 lux, ave/min

2.3


3b. Develop Baseline Models

10

Central Avenue‐Typ. Spacing Central Avenue‐Max. Spacing

Calculated levels are consistent with

measured illuminances

Typ. Spacing: average 8.9 lux, min. 3.2 lux,

ave/min 2.8 on road; average 5.5 lux, min. 2.0

lux on sidewalk

Max. Spacing: average 6.9 lux, min. 1.9 lux, ave/min 3.6 on road;

average 4.4 lux, min. 1.1 lux on sidewalk


4a. Evaluate Retrofit Options

Southern State Parkway (western section) – Light level criterion: 9 lux

11


4b. Evaluate Retrofit Options

Southern State Parkway (eastern section) – Light level criterion: 9 lux

12


4c. Evaluate Retrofit Options

Central Avenue (typical spacing)

13

*Arterials (Major Road): Average illuminance criterion w/med. pedestrian use is 13 lux; current average illuminance estimated at 9 lux.


5a. Economic Analysis

Compared to existing conditions – SSP west

14

Southern State Parkway WestCree LEDway‐2ME‐double module‐tilt20

Luminaires Wattage Subtotal539 295 159005 W

7.5%11858 W4380 hr51938 kWh/yr$0.20

$10,543$690 ea

$371,910$59,290

41 yrInstallation costPayback

Power Savings (%)Power Savings Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire cost



Compared to existing conditions – SSP east

15

Southern State Parkway EastLithonia DSX2 LED 100C 700 40K T2M MVOLT


23.1%39984 W4380 hr

175130 kWh/yr$0.20

$35,551$1,112 ea

$653,856$64,680

20 yr

Energy savings/yr ($)

Power Savings (%)Power Savings Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWh

Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire costInstallation costPayback



Compared to existing conditions – SSP east (cont’d.)

16

Southern State Parkway EastMcGraw GLEON‐AE‐03‐LED‐E1‐T2R


46.8%81144 W4380 hr

355411 kWh/yr$0.20

$72,148$912 ea

$536,256$64,680

8 yrPayback

Power Savings (%)Power Savings Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire costInstallation cost

Southern State Parkway EastHolophane Mongoose MGLED 5 4K AX W L‐no tilt


30.2%52332 W4380 hr

229214 kWh/yr$0.20

$46,530$850 ea

$499,800$64,680

12 yr

Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire costInstallation costPayback

Power Savings (%)Power Savings Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)



Compared to existing conditions – Central Avenue

17

Central AvenueGE Lighting ERS3‐JXEX540


22.1%6300 W4380 hr27594 kWh/yr$0.15$4,078$708 ea

$106,200$16,500

30 yr

Power Savings (%)Power Savings Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire costInstallation costPayback

Central AvenueAmerican Electric ATB2‐40BLEDE10‐XXXXX‐R3


24.7%7050 W4380 hr30879 kWh/yr$0.15$4,564$730 ea

$109,500$16,500

28 yr

Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire cost

Power Savings (%)Power Savings

Installation costPayback

Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)


5b. Economic Analysis

Retrofit of existing lighting involves cost of LED luminaires as well as increased costs to produce higher light level criterion Scenarios were compared to next‐higher HPS wattage system› SSP west and east: 250 W HPS → 400 W HPS› Central Avenue: 150 W HPS → 250 W HPS

18



Compared to increased light level conditions – SSP west

19



41.3%103488 W4380 hr

453277 kWh/yr$0.20

$92,015$690 ea

$371,910$59,290

5 yr




Compared to increased light level conditions – SSP east

20



51.2%139944 W4380 hr

612955 kWh/yr$0.20

$124,430$1,112 ea

$653,856$64,680

6 yr

Energy savings/yr ($)

Power Savings (%)Power Savings Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWh


Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire cost



54.2%148176 W4380 hr

649011 kWh/yr$0.20

$131,749$1,086 ea

$638,568$64,680

5 yr

Power Savings (%)Power Savings


Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire cost



Compared to increased light level conditions – SSP east (cont’d.)

21



66.2%181104 W4380 hr

793236 kWh/yr$0.20

$161,027$912 ea

$536,256$64,680

4 yr

Power Savings Power Savings (%)


Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire cost



Power Savings (%) 55.7%Power Savings 152292 WHours/yr 4380 hrkWh/yr savings 667039 kWh/yrCost/kWh $0.20Energy savings/yr ($) $135,409Luminaire price (ea) $850 eaLuminaire cost $499,800Installation cost $64,680Payback 4 yr



Compared to increased light level conditions – Central Avenue

22



49.8%22050 W4380 hr96579 kWh/yr$0.16

$15,240$708 ea

$106,200$16,500

8 yr




51.5%22800 W4380 hr99864 kWh/yr$0.16

$15,759$730 ea

$109,500$16,500

8 yr

Energy savings/yr ($)Cost/kWhkWh/yr savingsHours/yrPower Savings Power Savings (%)

PaybackInstallation costLuminaire costLuminaire price (ea)


5c. Economic Analysis

Adaptive lighting control is permitted when roadway classification changes because of reduced use› Reducing light levels to 50% during less active periods can achieve 30% energy savings

› Lighting control cost averages 9.5% of the cost of the LED lighting system

23



Compared to adaptive w/increased light level conditions – SSP west

24



58.9%147632 W4380 hr

646629 kWh/yr$0.20

$131,266$690 ea

$371,910$59,290

Controls cost $35,3314 yr

Energy Savings (%)Power Savings (rel.)Hours/yrkWh/yr savingsCost/kWhEnergy savings/yr ($)Luminaire price (ea)Luminaire costInstallation cost

Payback



Compared to adaptive w/increased light level conditions – SSP east

25



65.8%179987 W4380 hr

788342 kWh/yr$0.20

$160,033$1,112 ea

$653,856$64,680



Payback



67.9%185749 W4380 hr

813581 kWh/yr$0.20

$165,157$1,086 ea

$638,568$64,680



Payback



Compared to adaptive w/increased light level conditions – SSP east (cont’d.)

26



76.4%208798.8 W

4380 hr914539 kWh/yr$0.20

$185,651$912 ea

$536,256$64,680

Controls cost $50,9444 yrPayback




Power Savings (%) 69.0%Power Savings 188630.4 WHours/yr 4380 hrkWh/yr savings 826201 kWh/yrCost/kWh $0.20Energy savings/yr ($) $167,719Luminaire price (ea) $850 eaLuminaire cost $499,800Installation cost $64,680Controls cost $47,481Payback 4 yr



Compared to adaptive w/increased light level conditions – Central Avenue

27



64.9%28710 W4380 hr

125750 kWh/yr$0.15

$18,586$708 ea

$106,200$16,500



Payback



66.1%29235 W4380 hr

128049 kWh/yr$0.15

$18,926$730 ea

$109,500$16,500



Payback


6. Discussion and Recommendations

Energy savings feasible› 7%‐48% savings feasible from existing conditions› 41%‐66% savings from higher light level conditions› 59%‐76% savings if adaptive controls are included› Cost savings from maintenance reductions likely

Environmental impacts› SSP west: 0.05‐0.64 tons of NOx per year, 0.14‐1.7 tons of SO2 per year,

34‐429 tons of CO2 per year› SSP east: 0.17‐0.91 tons of NOx per year, 0.46‐2.4 tons of SO2 per year,

116‐607 tons of CO2 per year› Central Avenue: 0.03‐0.13 tons of NOx per year, 0.07‐0.34 tons of SO2 per

year, 18‐85 tons of CO2 per year

28


6. Discussion and Recommendations (cont’d.)

29

Specification issues› Warranty: 5 years is typical for LED products, Cree offers 10 years; similar in magnitude to payback duration

› Radio interference: Standard specifications for HPS lighting do not control electromagnetic interference, but this could be an issue with LED components• FCC Title 47, Subpart B, Section 15 sets interference limits• Requiring a test report documenting conformance is recommended


6. Discussion and Recommendations (cont’d.)

30

Conclusions› Retrofitting is feasible and can result in energy savings• >20% energy savings feasible for SSP east and Central Ave.

› Comparing to similar light levels makes LEDs even more attractive in terms of energy savings and payback periods

› Implementation issues for arterial roads where operation of lighting is paid by municipality but owned by utility


Thank you!

NYSDOT (Project Sponsor): Owais Memon (project manager), Paul Abbatiello, Robert Ancar, John Bassett, Robert Bayern, Rich Causin, Greg Grimshaw, Rochelle Hosley, Eric Huckstadt, Wadith Isdith, Mark Kennedy, Rob Limoges, Deborah Mooney, Abdus Salam, Emilio Sosa, George Sprague, Bob Terry, Michael Ufko, Todd Westhuis, Bob Winans, David Woodin, and Ellen Zimmerman

FHWA: John Nickelson, Benjamin Fischer UTRC: Camille Kamga Creighton Manning: Wendy Holsberger LRC: Mark Rea, Jennifer Brons, Nicholas Skinner, Jeremy Snyder

1

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)

Progress Report

Submitted by:

John D. Bullough, Ph.D.

Lighting Research Center (LRC), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

A. Project Title:

LED Roadway Lighting Benefits and Costs Collaboration

B. Agreement Number:

C-15-08 (NYSERDA Agreement 83173)

C. Date of Report:

September 8, 2016 (for August 2016)

D. Progress Report

Project team members from the Lighting Research Center and Creighton Manning

completed simulations of roadway segments and intersections along Central Avenue

(see appended pages) and met with representatives from the Town and Village of

Colonie, National Grid, Capital District Transportation Committee at Village Hall to share

results. In order to achieve the desired increase in light levels for safety, energy savings

as large as those built into existing National Grid tariffs are not practical, but energy

savings on the order of 20%-30% may be feasible while increasing the light levels on

the roadway. Consensus emerged that the focus should continue to be on safety. LRC

project team members will develop an online survey mechanism to be shared with the

Village and Town in order to obtain feedback on existing lighting conditions and team

members will work to obtain sample luminaires to compare white-color options (e.g.,

3000 K versus 4000 K for correlated color temperature) for an evaluation demonstration

in the fall.

2

E. Identification of Problems

None.

F. Planned Progress Next Period

Subsequent photometric analyses will focus on the most promising luminaires from

those evaluated, with options for distribution types to ensure sufficient illumination in

sidewalks and in intersections. National Grid will provide additional information about

the locations and types of lights along Central Avenue, as well as information about the

LED luminaires currently planned to meet the existing utility-owned street lighting tariff.

G. Schedule

H. Costs

Costs are reflected in invoice(s) from Rensselaer to NYSERDA.

Draft for Discussion – Not for Circulation

1

Central Avenue Light Levels 10 Aug 2016

Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Average Roadway Illuminance – 200 ft Spacing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Ro

adw

ay Il

lum

inan

ce -

20

0 f

t

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips

Am.Elec. Cooper Cree GE Kim Holoph. HPS


2

Average Sidewalk Illuminance – 200 ft Spacing

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Sid

ew

alk

Illu

min

ance

- 2

00

ft

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Cree Cooper Kim Am.Elec. HPS GE

Holoph.


3

Average Roadway Illuminance – 260 ft Spacing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Ro

adw

ay Il

lum

inan

ce -

26

0 f

t

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Am.Elec. Cooper

Cree GE Kim Holoph. HPS


4

Average Sidewalk Illuminance – 260 ft Spacing

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Sid

ew

alk

Illu

min

ance

- 2

60

ft

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Cree Cooper

Kim

Am. Elec. HPS

GE Holoph.


5

Average Roadway Relative Brightness – 200 ft Spacing (4000K)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Ro

adw

ay R

el.

Bri

ghtn

ess

- 2

00

ft

(40

00

K)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips



6

Average Sidewalk Relative Brightness – 200 ft Spacing (4000K)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Sid

ew

alk

Re

l. B

righ

tne

ss -

20

0 f

t (4

00

0 K

)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Cree Cooper Kim Am.Elec. GE HPS Holoph.


7


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Ro

adw

ay R

el.

Bri

ghtn

ess

- 2

60

ft

(40

00

K)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Am.Elec. Cooper Cree GE Kim Holoph. HPS


8


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Sid

ew

alk

Re

l. B

righ

tne

ss -

26

0 f

t (4

00

0K

)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Cree Cooper Kim Am. Elec. GE HPS Holoph.


9


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Ro

adw

ay R

el.

Bri

ghtn

ess

- 2

00

ft

(30

00

K)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips



10


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Sid

ew

alk

Re

l. B

righ

tne

ss -

20

0 f

t (3

00

0K

)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Cree Cooper Kim Am.Elec. HPS

GE Holoph.


11


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Ro

adw

ay R

el.

Bri

ghtn

ess

- 2

60

ft

(30

00

K)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Am.Elec. Cooper Cree GE Kim Holoph. HPS


12


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Ave

rage

Sid

ew

alk

Re

l. B

righ

tne

ss -

26

0 f

t (3

00

0K

)

Wattage

HPS

Am.Elec.

Cooper

Cree

GE

Holoph.

Kim

LED Rwy.

Philips

LED Rwy.

Philips Cree Cooper Kim Am. Elec.

HPS

GE Holoph.

Route 5 LED Lighting Analysis‐ 115‐183

NG Comparable Wattages

Crossing Street Existing Lights Recommended Level (fc)(1)

Existing Average (fc)(2)

Existing Avg. w/Repairs (fc)(3)

Uniformity Ratio

Proposed Lights

Average (fc) Uniformity Ratio

Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Midway Fire Department

(1) 100w HPS 1.6 0.8 N/A 1.6

Colonie Plaza (3) 150w HPS 2.4 0.4 N/A 4.0 60 W LED 0.3 n/a 60 W LED 0.6 6.0 56 W LED 0.3 n/a 56 W LED 0.3 n/a 86 W LED 0.3 n/a 86 W LED 0.3 3.0

Rte 155 ‐ New Karner (3) 250w HPS 3.2 0.5 N/A 5.0

Vly Road (3) 150w HPS 2.7 0.9 N/A 4.5 60 W LED 0.6 6.0 60 W LED 0.6 6.0 56 W LED 0.5 n/a 56 W LED 0.5 5.0 86 W LED 0.5 5.0 86 W LED 0.5 2.5

Shoprite/ Willow Avenue

(1) 150w HPS 2.4 0.5 N/A 5.0

Red Fox Drive/ Lanci Lane

(1) 100w HPS, (1) 150w HPS

2.4 0.3 1.2 4.0

Jupiter Lane (3) 150w HPS 2.4 0.6 0.8 8.0

Lincoln Avenue/ Parkwood Drive

(2) 250w HPS 2.7 0.7 N/A 7.0 107 W LED 0.4 n/a 107 W LED 0.3 n/a 107 W LED 0.4 n/a 107 W LED 0.4 n/a 121 W LED 0.4 n/a 121 W LED 0.3 n/a

Nicholas Drive/ Woolard Ave

(1) 250w HPS 2.4 0.2 1.2 6.0

Wolf Road (6) 250w HPS 3.4 1.0 1.2 10.0 107 W LED 0.6 6.0 107 W LED 0.6 6.0 107 W LED 0.8 8.0 107 W LED 0.8 8.0 121 W LED 0.7 3.5 121 W LED 0.6 3.0

Colonie Center/Northway Mall West

(3) 400w HPS(1) 250 W HPS

2.4 3.0 N/A 15.0

Colonie Center/ Northway Mall East

(3) 400w HPS(1) 250 W HPS

2.4 2.5 N/A 12.5

Fuller Road ‐ Town (4) 250w HPS 3.4 1.8 2.7 9.0

NOTES: (1) Recommended Level = Value based on AASHTO recommended illumination levels for intersecting roadwaysHPS (Watts) LED (Watts)

70 30100 60150 60250 140400 275

(3) Existing Avg w/Repairs = Values represent the average illumination if all existing lights were at like‐new condition. For example, a burned out fixture is replaced or a reduced lighting loss factor (LLF) is returned to a typical lighting loss factor (typically 0.81 LLF)

NG HPS to LED Conversion Table

(2) Existing Average = Values derived from Visual 2012 lighting program. Lighting models were created for each intersection and calibrated with field measurements in the Fall of 2013 as part of the NYSDOT Route 5 Comprehensive Pedestrian Safety Study .

Existing Lighting Criteria Cree‐Type 2 Cree‐ Type 3Cooper‐ Type 3American Electric‐Type 2 American Electric‐ Type 3 Cooper‐Type 2

Key: fc = foot candle; HPS = High Pressure Sodium; MH = Metal Halide


NG Comparable Wattages

Crossing Street


Colonie Plaza

Rte 155 ‐ New Karner

Vly Road

Shoprite/ Willow Avenue


Jupiter Lane



Wolf Road



Fuller Road ‐ Town

Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights

Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio

Proposed Lights Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio

Proposed Lights

Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio Proposed Lights

Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio

Proposed Lights

Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio

61 W LED 0.2 n/a 68.4 W LED 0.2 n/a 68.4 W LED 0.2 n/a 63.7 W LED 0.3 3.0 63.7 W LED 0.3 3.0 50.7 W 0.2 n/a 80.5 W 0.3 n/a 80.5 W 0.3 n/a

61 W LED 0.4 4.0 68.4 W LED 0.4 4.0 68.4 W LED 0.4 4.0 63.7 W LED 0.4 2.0 63.7 W LED 0.4 4.0 50.7 W 0.4 4.0 80.5 W 0.6 6.0 80.5 W 0.6 6.0

118 W LED 0.4 n/a 164 W LED 0.4 n/a 164 W LED 0.3 3.0 125.1 W LED 0.5 5.0 125.1 W LED 0.5 5.0 135 W LED 0.5 n/a 105.5 W LED 0.4 n/a 137 W LED 0.6 n/a

118 W LED 0.6 n/a 164 W LED 0.7 n/a 164 W LED 0.7 7.0 125.1 W LED 0.9 9.0 125.1 W LED 0.9 9.0 135 W LED 1.0 10.0 105.5 W LED 0.6 n/a 137 W LED 1.1 11.0

Holophane‐Type 2 Holophane‐ Type 3GE‐Type TBD Phillips Roadway‐Type 2 Phillips Roadway‐Type 3LED Roadway Lighting‐Type TBDKim‐Type 2 Kim‐ Type 3



Match Existing Wattages

Crossing Street Existing Lights Recommended Level (fc)(1)

Existing Average (fc)(2)

Existing Avg. w/Repairs (fc)(3)

Uniformity Ratio

Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights


Proposed Lights

Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio

Proposed Lights

Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio Proposed Lights

Average (fc)

Uniformity Ratio


(1) 100w HPS 1.6 0.8 N/A 1.6

Colonie Plaza (3) 150w HPS 2.4 0.4 N/A 4.0 138 W LED 0.7 7.0 157 W LED 0.8 n/a 140 W LED 0.5 5.0 151 W LED 0.5 5.0 164W LED 0.4 4.0 136 W LED 0.8 2.7 135 W LED 0.6 n/a 137 W LED 0.7 7.0

158 W LED 0.6 6.0 161 W LED 0.8 8.0

Rte 155 ‐ New Karner (3) 250w HPS 3.2 0.5 N/A 5.0

Vly Road (3) 150w HPS 2.7 0.9 N/A 4.5 138 W LED 1.2 4.0 157 W LED 1.3 6.5 140 W LED 1.0 5.0 151 W LED 1.0 5.0 164W LED 0.8 8.0 136 W LED 1.0 2.5 135 W LED 1.2 3.0 137 W LED 1.2 6.0

158 W LED 1.4 3.5 161 W LED 1.3 4.3Shoprite/ Willow Avenue

(1) 150w HPS 2.4 0.5 N/A 5.0


(1) 100w HPS, (1) 150w HPS

2.4 0.3 1.2 4.0

Jupiter Lane (3) 150w HPS 2.4 0.6 0.8 8.0


(2) 250w HPS 2.7 0.7 N/A 7.0 260 W LED 1.0 5.0 264 W LED 1.0 10.0 276 W LED 0.9 9.0 252 W LED 0.6 6.0 238W LED 0.5 5.0 269 W LED 0.9 3.0 158 W(4) 0.6 N/A 244 W LED 1.1 11.0


(1) 250w HPS 2.4 0.2 1.2 6.0

Wolf Road (6) 250w HPS 3.4 1.0 1.2 6.0 260 W LED 1.9 9.0 264 W LED 1.9 9.5 276 W LED 1.6 16.0 252 W LED 1.2 n/a 238W LED 1.00 10.0 269 W LED 1.7 17.0 158 W(4) 1.1 11.0 244 W LED 1.9 9.5


(3) 400w HPS(1) 250 W HPS

2.4 3.0 N/A 15.0


(3) 400w HPS(1) 250 W HPS

2.4 2.5 N/A 12.5

Fuller Road ‐ Town (4) 250w HPS 3.4 1.8 2.7 5.4

NOTES: (1) Recommended Level = Value based on AASHTO recommended illumination levels for intersecting roadwaysHPS (Watts) LED (Watts)

70 30100 60150 60250 140400 275

(4) 158 watts was the highest wattage .ies file provided for LED Roadway Lighting.

LED Roadway Lighting Phillips Roadway‐Type 3

NG HPS to LED Conversion Table

Cree‐ Type 3 GE‐ Type 3 Holophane‐ Type 3 Kim‐ Type 3Existing Lighting Criteria American Electric‐ Type 3 Cooper‐ Type 3

(2) Existing Average = Values derived from Visual 2012 lighting program. Lighting models were created for each intersection and calibrated with field measurements in the Fall of 2013 as part of the NYSDOT Route 5 Comprehensive Pedestrian Safety Study .

(3) Existing Avg w/Repairs = Values represent the average illumination if all existing lights were at like‐new condition. For example, a burned out fixture is replaced or a reduced lighting loss factor (LLF) is returned to a typical lighting loss factor (typically 0.81 LLF)


LUMINAIRE WATTAGE

LUMINAIRE NUMBER IN CIRCUIT

CIRCUIT NUMBER

LUMINAIRE DESIGNATION EXAMPLE

10/15/2014

RECEPTACLE HOUSING"Y" TYPE RUBBER INSULATOR

LINE CABLES

CONNECTOR SCREW

LINE CONNECTOR

RECEPTACLE TERMINAL

FUSE HOLDER

LOAD TERMINAL

(SCREW TYPE)

LOAD CABLE

"L" TYPE RUBBER INSULATORFUSEHOLDER TERMINAL

TYPE HEB-JW-RYC CONNECTOR SHOWN

LOAD SIDE ASSEMBLY LINE SIDE ASSEMBLY

BREAKAWAY POINT

BREAKAWAY FUSE CONNECTOR KIT

DETAILS OF TYPE HEB-JW-RYC CONNECTOR

6 AMP(480 VAC) CARTRIDGE FUSE

delivered lumens due to thermal loading when operated at 25°C (77°F).

The LED shall lose no more than a 15% optical intensity of initial 36.

degrees C (-40 degrees F to 104 degrees F).

The LED shall fully operate in a temperature range -40 degrees C to 40 35.

Class C applications.

Electrical components shall be protected per ANSI/IEEE standard C62.41, for 34.

degrees C (77 degrees F) at 100,000 hours.

rated when operated in a luminaire at 25 70 All LED components shall be L33.

100,000 hours or greater when operated at full lumen output at 25 degrees C.

The luminaire shall have life rating on all electrical components of 32.

ANSI/IEEEC62.41.

Fixture shall have a surge protection that meets 10KV/5KA per 31.

that will accommodate #6 thru #18 AWG pole wire.

luminaire. The terminal block shall be a 3 station, tunnel lug terminal board

The luminaire shall have a terminal block for terminating wiring to the 30.

termination is not acceptable.

terminated with quick disconnect wire harnesses for easy maintenance. Wire nut

The luminaire shall have a power supply (electronic driver) that is 29.

achieve a higher thermal performance.

The luminaire shall not use any active thermal cutback, such as in order to 28.

self-limited short circuit protected and over load protected.

The luminaire shall have a power supply (electronic driver) that is 27.

thermal overload protection.

The luminaire shall have a power supply (electronic driver) that has 26.

output.

The luminaire shall have an isolated power supply (electronic driver) 25.

(77°F).

of 100,000 hours with a luminaire operated at an ambient temperature of 25°C

The luminaire shall have power supply (electronic driver) with a rated life 24.

less than 10%.

The luminaire shall have power supply (electronic driver) output ripple of 23.

harmonic distortion of 20% or less at full load.

The luminaire shall have a power supply (electronic driver) that has total 22.

power factor of .90 or greater at full load.

The luminaire shall have a power supply (electronic driver) that has a 21.

operate on a 480 volt single phase at 60 hertz.

The luminaire shall have a power supply (electronic driver) that will 20.

output.

power supply shall not have a manual, field-adjustable setting for current

The luminaire shall have an integral power supply (electronic driver). The 19.

luminaire.

proposal, we will allow the wattage to be greater than the original proposed

the original HPS fixture if you are replacing one for one. For the optimized

In retrofit applications, the LED luminaire shall not be more wattage than 18.

up to 40 degrees C (-40 degrees F to 104 degrees F).

The luminaire shall fully operate in a temperature range of -40 degrees C 17.

the housing.

voltage and current range. The label must be clearly visible on the inside of

The luminaire shall have a label per ANSI C136.22 that states operating 16.

manage thermal output of LED light engine and power supply.

The luminaire shall have a passive cooling method shall be employed to 15.

The luminaire shall be designed to allow water shedding. 14.

Vibration for both normal applications and bridge and overpass applications.

Standard (ANSI) IEEE C136.31, Table 2 Roadway Lighting Equipment -Luminaire

The luminaire shall have a vibration rating of 3G per the American National 13.

replacement shall not require tools (i.e. "tool-less entry").

readily accessible internal parts. Access to all internal parts requiring

The luminaire shall be easy to open when properly mounted and shall have 12.

coat .

be stainless steel, zinc or steel with zinc alloy electroplate and chromate top

All hardware on the exterior of the housing including cover and latch shall 11.

after 3000 hours of testing per ASTM B117.

powdercoat of 2.5 mil nominal thickness. Finish shall pass per ASTM D1654

The luminaire finish shall be corrosion resistant with a polyester 10.

The fixture shall have a diecast aluminum housing. 9.

TM-21.

current version of Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)

Shall have long term lumen maintenance documented according to the most 8.

of Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) LM-80.

Shall have lumen maintenance measured in accordance the most current version 7.

Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) LM-79.

Shall be tested according to the most current version of Illuminating 6.

EN61000-3-2, -3-3, -4-4, -4-5.

as defined by FCC 47 Sub Part 15; CISPR15, CISPR22 Class A (120Vmin),

Shall be in compliance with Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI) requirements 5.

Protection (IP) rating of IP 65 or greater.

Shall have an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 529 Ingress 4.

protection devices shall be RoHS compliant.

Key components including LED drivers, LED light sources, and surge 3.

compliance with UL 1598 and suitable for use in wet locations.

The Luminaire shall be listed and labeled by a NRTL or CSA as being in 2.

Labor’s web site: http://www.osha.gov/

for products sold in the United States may be found on the U.S. Department of

conducted as required by this specification. A list of recognized testing labs

be listed by OSHA in its scope of recognition for the applicable tests being

(NRTL) as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor. The testing laboratory must

The Luminaire shall be listed by a National Recognized Testing Laboratory 1.

The following are the required Specifications for the LED Fixture:

LED Luminaire Specifications

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LED

LUMINAIRE DESIGN:

HOLEHAND

REMOVABLE TOP12" ARM

2" PIPE WITH

DAMPER INTERNAL TO THE SHAFT.

POLE INCLUDES A VIBRATION

LUMINAIRES IN MEDIAN WALL

DUE TO UTILITIES/DRAINAGE/RIGHT-OF-WAY.

OF LUMINAIRE (TO CURVE/ROAD) SHOULD BE MAINTAINED

ALL POLE LOCATIONS, ARM LENGTHS, AND ORIENTATION

AVERAGE/MINIMUM: NOT MORE THAN 3.5:1

MINIMUM: NOT LESS THAN .20 FOOTCANDLES

AND MORE THAN .68 FOOTCANDLES

AVERAGE: NOT LESS THAN .62 FOOTCANDLES

ILLUMINANCE:

OVERALL BRIDGE CRITERIA

AND HIGH MAST AT INTERCHANGE

2 - 7 - A

ALL TYPE A LUMINAIRES ARE MOUNTED AT 40’ LED LUMINAIRE

NOTE:

MO

UN

TIN

G

HEIG

HT

EXCEED 560 WATTS

LAMP WATTAGE: CAN NOT

TYPE II & V DISTRIBUTION

DRIVER: NOT TO EXCEED 1050 mA

EXCEED 328 WATTS

LAMP WATTAGE: CAN NOT

TYPE V DISTRIBUTION

DRIVER: NOT TO EXCEED 1050 mA

MEDIAN WALL LUMINAIRES HIGH MAST LUMINAIRES

photocontrol receptacle that meets ANSI 2013 standard C136.41

The luminaire shall be equipped with a shorting cap and a 7-pin 51.

Instructions for installation and maintenance.

Including intensity and chromaticity data.

Including IES electronic file.

Certified test lab IES photometric reports.

Written product warranty.

Backlight, Uplight, Glare (BUG) rating of the luminaire.

TM-21 calculations as defined .

LM-80 Lumen maintenance report.

temperatures of the luminaire.

The vendor must submit LM-79 in-situ test data to confirm thermal operating

LM-79 Luminaire photometric report.

LED driver specification sheet.

Luminaire specification sheet.

MINIMUM REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: 50.

the Department.

certified personnel or factory certified installers at no additional charge to

call is made from KYTC, and this support shall be made available from factory

available from the manufacturer via telephone within 24 hours of the time the

During the warranty period, technical support shall be Technical Support.

(3) Significant change in light output color.

(2) More than 10 percent decrease in lumen output.

(1) Failure in luminaire LED, housing, wiring, connections, and drivers.

The warranty shall cover all failures including:

shall be transferable.

warranty shall begin upon the date the luminaire is received. The warranty

and shipping (both ways) required to repair or replace the luminaire. The

minimum standard warranty of 10 years for all parts, materials, paint finish,

The Manufacturer shall ensure that the LED Luminaires have a WARRANTY: 49.

testing laboratory for the specific model being submitted.

TM-21 compliant test reports from a CALiPER qualified or NVLAP accredited

which verify light levels. Product submittal shall be accompanied by IES

The manufacturer shall provide certified test laboratories IES photometrics 48.

70,000 hours at 25°C (77°F).

from the TM-21 Report must not be below 80% at 80

The Lumen Maintenance Life L47.

scenario.

luminaire. The report can show a larger drive current to represent a worst case

The TM-21 Report must show the drive current used for the submitted 46.

Luminaire Dirt Depreciation (LDD)= .9

verification.

according to LM -80 and TM -21 reports. This report shall be submitted for

70,000 hours at 25°C (77°F) from the TM-21 report. This LLD should be

lumen maintenance at

Lamp Lumen Depreciation Factor (LLD) shall be the specified percentage of LED

LLF = LLD X LDD

follows:

The Light Loss Factor (LLF) shall be calculated for each fixture as 45.

Glare rating shall not exceed 3/4 c.

Uplight rating shall not exceed 0; b.

shall not exceed 5)

Backlight rating shall not exceed 3;(highmast fixture backlight rating a.

(IESNA) Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) rating as follows:

The optics shall have an Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 44.

The optical system shall have a (IEC) (IP) rating of 66 or greater.43.

The optics shall have a completely sealed optical system. 42.

The minimum color rendering index (CRI) shall not be less than 70.41.

(HIGH MAST ONLY).

shall be 5000K with a variance of 250K, white, that conforms to LM-79

250K, white, that conforms to LM-79. The Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)

The Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) shall be 4000K with a variance of 40.

The LED shall have a minimum Luminaire efficacy of 80 lumens/watt.39.

(77°F).

The LED shall have a rated life of 100,000 hours when operated at 25 °C 38.

70,000 hours of operation when operated at 25°C (77°F).

The LED shall deliver an average 80% of initial delivered lumens after 37.

Se

pte

mber 12, 2016

DA

TE P

LO

TT

ED:

te

d.s

wanse

gar

US

ER:

E-S

HE

ET

NA

ME:

T017

00

CL

Micro

Statio

n v8.11.7.443

COUNTY OF ITEM NO. SHEET NO.

FAYETTE 7-113.01 T17

LED LUMINAIRE/FUSE

CONNECTOR DETAILS

C:\

PW

WO

RK\

TE

D.S

WA

NS

EG

AR\

DM

S28754\

LE

D

LU

MIN

AIR

E S

PE

C 2015.

DG

NFIL

E

NA

ME:

Marc.Lipschultz

Text Box

Kentucky DOT Specification

Q1: LED Technology for New Q2: Retrofitting of Existing...

Documents

Transcript of Q1: LED Technology for New Q2: Retrofitting of Existing...