RSS 12 - Floodlighting pedestrian crossings

- October 1999

Table of contents

< previous | next >

4. Results

4.1 Interview surveys

4.1.1 What criteria (or warrant) is used to determine which crossings should be floodlit:

For full pedestrian crossings (ie. not crossings provided for schools);

• 30% of RCAs had a policy to floodlight them all.
• 49% of RCAs had a policy to floodlight just those that would generally be used at night.
• 10% of RCAs did not generally floodlight pedestrian crossings. For school pedestrian crossings;
• 17% of RCAs had a policy to floodlight them all
• 48% of RCAs would floodlight them only if they were generally used at night
• 34% of RCAs as a general rule did not floodlight school pedestrian crossings.

For pedestrian crossing points at traffic signals or pedestrian refuges almost all authorities relied on the existing street lighting to illuminate pedestrians.

For pedestrian platforms RCAs often used decorative lighting rather than flood lighting to achieve good illumination on the crossing. One authority also specified a minimum level of 20 lux for its CBD pedestrian platforms.

4.1.2 Proportion of crossings floodlit

• The proportion of pedestrian crossings floodlit varied markedly between RCAs. Five RCAs estimated they had close to 100% of their full pedestrian crossings floodlit. Eight RCAs estimated that less than a 30% of their pedestrian crossings would be floodlit.
• School pedestrian crossings tend to be less used at night and consequently were less frequently floodlit. Only two authorities stated they had close to 100% of these crossings floodlit. The majority or RCAs (72%) had less than 30% of school pedestrian crossings floodlit.
• Pedestrian platforms tended to be lit by decorative lighting or conventional street lighting, not with floodlighting.

4.1.3 Guidelines used

Most authorities used NZS 6701 as the basis for decisions on floodlighting. Some did not reference it directly but adopted standard designs and/or equipment that would meet NZS 6701.

Others had adopted the 20 lux criteria from NZS6701 and made it a local requirement for floodlighting.

4.1.4 Systems in place to ensure practice meets the guidelines

For new installations;

• 10% of RCAs stated they required some form of light measurement to ensure the contract had been met.
• The largest group (50%) of RCAs installed floodlighting to a standard design or required the contractor to deliver to a particular standard (eg. NZS6701) but did not require it to be checked afterwards.
• 40% had no systems in place For existing installations;
• 18% of RCAs had or were working towards a programme of upgrading substandard installations.
• 10% of RCAs indicated that lux levels of floodlighting are measured.
• 72% of RCAs had no systems in place.

4.1.5 Maintenance contracts

• 30% of maintenance contracts involved just "replacing lamps when they failed" and no more.
• 33% of contracts involved "replacing lamps when they failed" and "cleaning and checking the floodlights".
• 11% of contracts required replacement of lamps after a fixed number of hours or on a bulk 3 or 4 year replacement basis.

Bulk replacement of lamps was being considered by a number of authorities and is particularly important where Mercury lamps are operating. After 3 years the output of Mercury lamps will be reduced to around 80% of its initial value. Lamp failure, a common cause of crossings not meeting the standard, will also be reduced by bulk lamp replacement policies.

4.1.6 Estimate on the proportion of crossings meeting the standard.

Prior to the field surveys the participants were asked to estimate what proportion of their crossings met the 20 lux value of NZS 6701. The estimates ranged from 0% to 100%, averaging at 58% but strongly clustering at the extremities. This probably reflects a great deal of uncertainty on what a fully complying floodlit crossing looks like. As well as gathering statistical data the field survey was intended to provide feedback to RCAs on just how well their floodlighting was performing.

4.1.7 Views on adopting the Australian Standard AS1158.4

The participants were asked their views on the current NZ standard and if a joint standard was produced would they wish NZ to adopt the recommendations in the Australian standard, AS1158.4. By placing the floodlight several metres on the approach side of a pedestrian crossing this standard ensures the pedestrian as well as the crossing is illuminated for approaching traffic.

• 48% had no firm views on which system was best but a number cautioned against the potential for dazzle and additional costs that the Australian system could introduce.
• 31% preferred the current NZ system.
• 17% preferred the Australian system.
• 4% (1) preferred a modified NZ system that better recognised conditions on low volume roads.

4.1.8 Belisha beacons or fluoro discs

Participants were asked to describe any policy their authority had on the provision of fluoro discs or Belisha beacons at pedestrian crossings. A summary of the points raised is given below;

• Where there are already Belisha beacons and floodlighting then most, but not all, authorities wished to maintain the Belisha beacon.
• At school crossings and areas where there is no floodlighting and it is not intended to put floodlighting then fluoro discs are generally preferred.
• The fluoro discs were highly regarded for their current daytime visibility but there were some concerns over;
  • Their impact at night (especially with dew on the sign face)
  • Their continued visual impact once weathering has taken place
• In some areas Belisha beacons were seen as a maintenance problem.

4.1.9 General comments:

Some of the general suggestions included;

• Develop a warrant for floodlighting pedestrian crossings
• Produce a single guide/standard for pedestrian crossings including recommendations on when to use fluoro discs.
• Provide training sessions for engineers when new standards/guidelines are released
• Publish a best practice guideline on the basis of these surveys
• Carry out a trial of any new pedestrian crossing floodlighting system before adopting it.

4.2 Field surveys

Night-time surveys were carried out using the field sheet shown in Appendix 2. In total there were 166 floodlit pedestrian crossings and 64 pedestrian platforms surveyed.

4.2.1 Lux levels on floodlit pedestrian crossings

A summary of the results of the lighting survey for each RCA is shown in Table 1. In interpreting this table it should be noted that;

• The sample size per RCA is small and random variations could influence the pass/failure rate for individual RCAs.
• The results represent lighting levels in the April/May 1999 survey and not any subsequent improvements.

From Figure 1 it can be seen that;

• 39% of floodlit crossings met the 20 lux standard required by NZS 6701.
• 18% of floodlit crossings met the 40 lux recommendation specified in TR11(4)

4.2.2 Light source used for floodlighting

At each site the light source used to floodlight the crossing was noted.Tables 2 and 3 relate the light source with the lux level achieved and whether the lamp was operating at the time of the survey.

Observations from these tables;

• The main light sources used to floodlight pedestrian crossings were, in order: High pressure sodium (42%), mercury vapour (38%), and halogen (9%). In 9% of cases there was a different source at each end of the crossing. (termed "mixed" in Tables 2 & 3) 70% of pedestrian crossings lit with high pressure sodium fittings met NZS 6701. This compares with just 14% of the crossings lit with mercury vapour fittings. [Table 2]
• The average lux values for high pressure sodium was 31 lux (min) compared to just 13 lux (min) for mercury vapour fittings. [Table 2]
• High pressure sodium proved to be the most reliable source. 5% of pedestrian crossings lit with high pressure sodium, 19% lit with mercury vapour and 23% lit with halogen fittings had at least one lamp not working at the time of the survey. [Table 3]

4.2.3 Belisha beacons / fluoro discs

The survey obtained data on whether Belisha beacons were present and, if so, whether they were operating.

• Almost all (97%) of floodlit pedestrian crossings surveyed had Belisha beacons installed
• 3 crossings had fluoro discs installed and 2 crossings had neither fluoro discs nor Belisha beacons
• 27 (17%) of the crossings that had Belisha beacons installed had at least one which was not operating at the time of the survey.

4.2.4 Lighting of pedestrian platforms

Measurements of the lighting levels both on, and within 3 metres of a pedestrian platform were made at 66 sites. The minimum lux readings were compared with the requirements of the joint standard AS/NZS 1158 (Category P and V). In this standard the minimum lux requirements are related to the level of lighting on the surrounding road.

In particular for;

• category P (minor) roads Minimum = 3.5 lux
• category V4 roads Minimum = 5 lux
• category V3 roads Minimum = 7.5 lux
• category V2 roads Minimum = 10 lux
• category V1 roads Minimum = 15 lux

Table 4 shows the number of pedestrian platforms for each RCA that met the above standards.

Observations;

• 63% of pedestrian platforms met the AS/NZS 1158 standard. This is substantially higher than the 39% compliance found for pedestrian crossing floodlighting.
• Modern city centre pedestrian platforms were generally in well lit areas and met the standard comfortably.

< previous | next >