The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts

and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official

policy of the Department of Transportation.

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed.

They have not been converted to pure SI units because in some cases, the level of precision

implied would have been changed.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the

document.

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration

under contract number DTFH61-99-C00005. awarded to American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Any

opinions, options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the authors’ parent

institutions, or American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 

FHWA-PL-01-034

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

European Road Lighting Technologies 

5. Report Date 

September 2001

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) Dale Wilken, Balu Ananthanarayanan, Patrick Hasson, Paul J. 

Lutkevich, C. Paul Watson, Karl Burkett, John Arens, Jim Havard, Jeff 

Unick

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

American Trade Initiatives 

P.O. Box 8228 

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No.(TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-99-C-0005 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of International Programs 

Office of Policy 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Donald W. Symmes, Office of International Programs 

16. Abstract

The objective of this scanning tour was to gather information from European transportation ministries and 

lighting professionals regarding cutting-edge research and technologies in highway and roadway lighting 

systems, including tunnel illumination, sign lighting, and all methods used to design roadway lighting systems. 

Some of the information could provide a basis on which to update the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials’ Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting. 

In April 2000 the scan team visited Finland, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Based on its 

observations, the panel developed specific recommendations for the U.S. lighting community in such areas as 

visibility design technique; dynamic road lighting; pavement reflection factors; master lighting plans; lighting 

techniques for roundabouts, crosswalks, and pedestrian areas; energy-absorbing poles; signs; and equipment 

quality level and maintenance. 

17. Key Words

Luminance, small target visibility, luminaire, counterbeam, pro-beam, reflectance. 

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

from the 

Office of International Programs 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325 

US Dept. of Transportation 

Washington, DC 20590 

international@fhwa.dot.gov 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

80

22. Price 

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

i

European Road

Lighting Technologies

Prepared by the study tour team

and

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

&

Avalon Integrated Services, Inc.

for the

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

and

The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials

and

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(Panel 20-36)

of the Transportation Research Board

September 2001

Dale Wilken

FHWA

Balu Ananthanarayanan

Wisconsin DOT

Patrick Hasson

FHWA

Paul J. Lutkevich

Parsons Brinckerhoff

C. Paul Watson

Alabama DOT

Karl Burkett

Texas DOT

John Arens

FHWA

Jim Havard

LITES

Jeff Unick

Pennsylvania DOT
ii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The FHWA’s international programs focus on meeting the growing demands of its

partners at the Federal, State, and local levels for access to information on state-ofthe-art technology and the best practices used worldwide. While the FHWA is

considered a world leader in highway transportation, the domestic highway

community is very interested in the advanced technologies being developed by other

countries, as well as innovative organizational and financing techniques used by the

FHWA’s international counterparts.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The International Technology Scanning Program accesses and evaluates foreign

technologies and innovations that could significantly benefit U.S. highway

transportation systems. Access to foreign innovations is strengthened by U.S.

participation in the technical committees of international highway organizations and

through bilateral technical exchange agreements with selected nations. The program

has undertaken cooperatives with the American Association of State Highway

Transportation Officials and its Select Committee on International Activities, and the

Transportation Research Board’s National Highway Research Cooperative Program

(Panel 20-36), the private sector, and academia.

Priority topic areas are jointly determined by the FHWA and its partners. Teams of

specialists in the specific areas of expertise being investigated are formed and sent to

countries where significant advances and innovations have been made in technology,

management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and financing.

Teams usually include Federal and State highway officials, private sector and

industry association representatives, as well as members of the academic community.

The FHWA has organized more than 40 of these reviews and disseminated results

nationwide. Topics have encompassed pavements, bridge construction and

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management, winter

road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, and policy.

Findings are recommended for follow-up with further research and pilot or

demonstration projects to verify adaptability to the United States. Information about

the scan findings and results of pilot programs are then disseminated nationally to

State and local highway transportation officials and the private sector for

implementation.

This program has resulted in significant improvements and savings in road program

technologies and practices throughout the United States, particularly in the areas of

structures, pavements, safety, and winter road maintenance. Joint research and

technology-sharing projects have also been launched with international counterparts,

further conserving resources and advancing the state of the art.

For a complete list of International Technology Scanning topics, and to order free

copies of the reports, please see list on the facing page.

Website: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Email: international@fhwa.dot.gov
iii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE REPORTS

Infrastructure

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing 

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality EnhancementCATQEST

Pavements

European Asphalt Technology

European Concrete Technology

South African Pavement Technology

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments

Bridges

European Bridge Structures

Asian Bridge Structures

Bridge Maintenance Coatings

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in Europe

Planning and Environment

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy and Technology

National Travel Surveys

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads

Safety

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany and the Netherlands

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe & Australia

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

Road Safety Audits—Final Report 

Road Safety Audits—Case Studies 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology & Practice in Europe

Commercial Vehicle Safety Technology & Practice in Europe

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European Work Zones

Operations

Advanced Transportation Technology

European Traffic Monitoring

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems

European Winter Service Technology

Snowbreak Forest Book – Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure Manual (Translated

from Japanese)

European Road Lighting Technologies

Policy & Information

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad— Handbook

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad— Final Report

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information

Also available on the internet

Only on the internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov
iv

CONTENTS

OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. viii

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

Trip Planning ..................................................................................................................... 1

Objective ....................................................................................................................... 2

Team Members............................................................................................................. 2

Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 2

Amplifying Questions .................................................................................................. 3

Trip Itinerary ............................................................................................................... 3

Report Organization .......................................................................................................... 4

American and European Contrasts .................................................................................. 4

Culture ......................................................................................................................... 4

Language ...................................................................................................................... 5

Engineering .................................................................................................................. 5

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS ............................................ 6

Design................................................................................................................................. 6

Verification ......................................................................................................................... 7

Equipment Quality Level and Lighting System Maintenance ....................................... 7

Power Conservation........................................................................................................... 8

Master Lighting Plan ........................................................................................................ 9

Energy-Absorbing Poles .................................................................................................... 9

Litigation.......................................................................................................................... 10

Light Pollution ................................................................................................................. 10

Warrants .......................................................................................................................... 11

Belgium ...................................................................................................................... 11

Switzerland ................................................................................................................ 11

Finland ....................................................................................................................... 11

France ......................................................................................................................... 11

The Netherlands ........................................................................................................ 11

Panel Recommendations ................................................................................................. 13

VISIBILITY DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 14

Design............................................................................................................................... 14

Research ........................................................................................................................... 14

Crosswalks ....................................................................................................................... 16

Panel Recommendations ................................................................................................. 17

LUMINANCE DESIGN AND PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS .................................... 19

Luminance Design Technique ......................................................................................... 19

Pavement Reflection Factors and R-Tables .................................................................... 19

New Types of Pavement .................................................................................................. 21

Pavement Reflection Factors: Other Conditions ............................................................ 22

Panel Recommendation ................................................................................................... 23

TUNNELS .................................................................................................................... 24

COUNTER-BEAM AND PRO-BEAM LIGHTING ............................................................ 28
CONTENTS

v

HIGH-MAST, DECORATIVE, AND SIGN LIGHTING....................................................... 30

High-Mast Lighting ......................................................................................................... 30

Decorative Lighting ......................................................................................................... 30

Sign Lighting ................................................................................................................... 30

Panel Recommendation ................................................................................................... 33

ROUNDABOUTS ......................................................................................................... 34

Roundabout Categories ................................................................................................... 34

Luminaire Locations ....................................................................................................... 34

Roundabout Light Levels ................................................................................................ 35

Panel Recommendation ................................................................................................... 35

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS................................................................................................ 36

Other Observations ......................................................................................................... 38

Panel Recommendation ................................................................................................... 39

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ............................................................................................ 40

New European Standards ............................................................................................... 40

Traffic Control Centers ................................................................................................... 40

Dynamic Roadway Lighting............................................................................................ 41

Guidance Systems ........................................................................................................... 42

Pavement Reflection Qualities ....................................................................................... 43

Tunnels............................................................................................................................. 44

Research Needs................................................................................................................ 45

Overall Research Impressions ........................................................................................ 45

Panel Recommendations ................................................................................................. 45

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 46

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ 47

APPENDIX A: PANEL MEMBERS................................................................................. 48

APPENDIX B: AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS .................................................................... 53

APPENDIX C: KEY CONTACTS IN HOST COUNTRIES ................................................. 60

APPENDIX D: KEY PAPERS......................................................................................... 64

APPENDIX E: OUTREACH ACTIVITIES IN 2000........................................................... 65

ENDNOTES.................................................................................................................. 66

TABLES

1. Schedule of Team Meetings ........................................................................................ 3

2. Scan Team Itinerary ................................................................................................... 3

3. R-Table Values, by Pavement Class ......................................................................... 20

4. Fatalities in Road Accidents..................................................................................... 36

5. Fatalities per 1 billion vehicle kilometers traveled ................................................ 37
CONTENTS

vi

FIGURES

1. The roadway lighting scan team .............................................................................. 2

2. Maintenance of luminaires, Switzerland ................................................................ 7

3. Tunnel cleaning in Paris .......................................................................................... 8

4. & 5. Master lighting plans, Paris .................................................................................. 9

6. Results of crash test of energy-absorbing pole........................................................ 9

7. & 8. Results of R-Tech’s study on light pollution ....................................................... 10

9. Uniform vs. nonuniform lighting ........................................................................... 15

10. Typical three-dimensional target .......................................................................... 15

11. Model roadway installation.................................................................................... 16

12. View of Lecocq’s computer modeling software ...................................................... 16

13a. Demonstration roadway with 3-D spheres and square, flat targets ................... 17

13b. Photographic image (zoom) of targets ................................................................... 17

13c. Synthesized image of targets ................................................................................. 17

14. Synthesized configuration of road surface ............................................................ 18

15. Synthesized configuration of road surface ............................................................ 18

16. Lighting scheme for crosswalks, Switzerland ....................................................... 18

17. Wevelgem Tunnel, Belgium.................................................................................... 19

18. Highway near Helsinki Airport, Finland .............................................................. 19

19. Highways near Helsinki, Finland .......................................................................... 19

20. Milchbuck Tunnel, Switzerland ............................................................................. 21

21. New porous asphalt ................................................................................................ 21

22. Porous asphalt, after 12 months ............................................................................ 22

23. Wet roadway in Finland ......................................................................................... 22

24. Underground roundabout, Switzerland ................................................................ 24

25. Underground roundabout entrance and exit feeds to

underground parking ............................................................................................. 24

26. Tunnel in Lyon, France .......................................................................................... 25

27. Tunnel in Helsinki, Finland ................................................................................... 25

28. Tunnel at Schipol Airport, the Netherlands ......................................................... 26

29. Milchbuck Tunnel, Switzerland ............................................................................. 26

30. Wevelgem Tunnel, Belgium.................................................................................... 26

31. Milchbuck Tunnel, Switzerland ............................................................................. 27

32. Black Window method, the Netherlands ............................................................... 27

33. Examples of Black Windows .................................................................................. 27

34a. Symmetrical (bisymmetrical) light distribution ................................................... 28

34b. Counter-beam light distribution ............................................................................ 28

34c. Pro-beam light distribution.................................................................................... 28

35. High-mast lighting, Finland .................................................................................. 30

36. High-mast lighting, Belgium.................................................................................. 30

37. Parking lot lighting, Helsinki, Finland ................................................................. 31

38. Parking lot lighting, Helsinki Airport, Finland .................................................... 31

39. To aid recognition, vertical and semispherical illuminance is

used in pedestrian areas ........................................................................................ 31

40a., b. & c. Example of typical decorative lighting in Zurich, Switzerland ............... 32

41. & 42. Downtown Helsinki, Finland ......................................................................... 32

43. & 44. Decorative lighting in Finland ....................................................................... 33

45. & 46. Zurich, Switzerland, at night ......................................................................... 33
CONTENTS

vii

47. Micro-prismatic sheeting materials for signs in Finland..................................... 33

48. Roundabout, Paris, France ..................................................................................... 34

49. Roundabout at Philips Outdoor Lighting Application Center,

La Valbonne, France ............................................................................................... 34

50. Swiss recommendation for luminaire placement ................................................. 35

51. The Swiss “Vision Zero” program........................................................................... 38

52. Road accidents compared with numbers of vehicles ............................................ 39

53. & 54. Views of a TCC in Switzerland (left) and Finland (right) ............................. 40

55. Low level of roadway lighting, the Netherlands ................................................... 41

56. Normal level of roadway lighting .......................................................................... 41

57. High level of roadway lighting ............................................................................... 41

58. Dutch guidance systems under investigation ....................................................... 42

59a. & b. In-road, fiber-optic delineators ........................................................................ 43

60. Examples of colored pavement............................................................................... 43

61. & 62. Application of colored pavement .................................................................... 44

63. Typical motorist’s view of a tunnel ........................................................................ 44

64. Virtual reflectometer, France ................................................................................. 45

65. Effects of tunnel lighting color............................................................................... 45
viii

OVERVIEW

The volume of vehicle traffic is increasing worldwide, and roadway lighting can be an

effective tool to help provide efficient and safe traffic movement. The U.S.

transportation community is interested in identifying cutting-edge research and

technologies in highway and roadway lighting systems. Specific interests include

tunnel illumination, sign lighting, and visibility metrics that are used in the design of

roadway lighting systems.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

is in the process of updating its Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting and

recognizes the need to gather information from transportation ministries and lighting

professionals outside the United States. The information gathered will provide a basis

to update the Guide and will provide a better tool for State and local authorities that

design, install, operate, and maintain public lighting systems.

The study was co-sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), an

agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and by AASHTO. The purpose of the

study was to gather information related to current roadway lighting practices and

innovative solutions used by other countries.

The team members brought a variety of professional perspectives to the study.

Representation included the States of Alabama, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin;

the FHWA; and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).

The lighting study was conducted during the first 16 days of April 2000, with

meetings held in Finland, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The

delegation met with professionals in the field of roadway lighting to observe and

evaluate the European experience in a number of areas of specific interest, including

small target visibility (STV) and luminance design techniques.

Information was collected on the following 10 primary areas of interest, which form

the main sections of this report:

• Practical Matters

• Visibility Design

• Luminance Design

• Pavement Reflection Factors

• Tunnels

• Counter-Beam vs. Pro-Beam Lighting

• High-Mast Lights and Signs

• Roundabouts

• Safety Implications

• Future Developments

Based on its observations, the panel developed specific recommendations for the

roadway lighting and safety communities in the United States. The recommendations

appear below, in descending order of priority.
ix

OVERVIEW

VISIBILITY DESIGN TECHNIQUE

The team members found that none of the countries visited use visibility techniques

in design. Visibility research with three-dimensional targets is, however, being

conducted in France and Belgium.

European research suggests that the visibility concept may provide a more complete

approach to lighting design, although more experience is needed. The panel

recommends experimentation and research on active roadways.

DYNAMIC ROAD LIGHTING

In the Netherlands, highway engineers have installed a dynamic roadway lighting

system that can be operated at three levels, depending on the amount of traffic and

weather conditions. The high level is 2 cd/m2

, the normal level is 1 cd/m2, and the low

level is 0.2 cd/m2

. The crash rate for the 0.2-cd/m2 system, when operated at low traffic

volumes, was acceptable. From these results it was determined that new systems will

be installed to operate at 1 cd/m2

 and 0.2 cd/m2. A similar road is currently being

installed in Finland.

The French are studying retroreflectivity and active luminous devices. Similarly, the

acceptability of different types of guidance systems is being researched in the

Netherlands.

As an approach to more dynamic management of roadway lighting, the panel

recommends investigating the application of dimmable lighting systems, turning off

lighting systems, and alternative guidance systems.

PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS

All of the countries use the luminance design method for roadways. Several countries

noted that there are problems with the standard “R-tables.” The initial luminance

values measured in the field vary from the values predicted by the design calculations

that used the standard R-tables.

It was stressed to the panel that, when doing field measurements, the roadway must

be dry and the temperature must be above the dew point. It was also noted that

better correlation between calculated and measured values is obtained when

measurements are made in the summer.

The French are researching the photometric properties of road surfaces. The evolution

of road surface technology and the use of bright and colored road surfaces

necessitated the research. Examples of new road surfaces are “quiet” and “waterdraining” pavements and very thin asphaltic concretes and surface dressings. The

French also are examining the possibility of using a virtual reflectometer for field

measurements.

Pavement reflectance is an important element of lighting design. The panel

recommends that more research, including field measurements, be conducted in order

to overcome the acknowledged inadequacy of the R-tables for pavements.
OVERVIEW

x

MASTER LIGHTING PLAN

A number of European cities have master lighting plans. The plans are based on

providing safety, beautification, and security for goods and people. Urban lighting is

viewed as a key component of city management.

The panel encourages the development of master lighting-design plans to improve the

coordination of roadway and urban lighting in such matters as lighting levels and

styles and themes for safety, security, and beautification.

ROUNDABOUT LIGHTING

Each of the countries visited has specific recommendations for roundabout lighting.

All cited the importance of having roundabout light levels higher than the levels on

approach streets.

The panel recommends that the European experience in roundabout lighting be

synthesized and consolidated for U.S. application.

CROSSWALK AND PEDESTRIAN-AREA LIGHTING

The Swiss have modified lighting techniques to provide vertical illuminance, which

allows pedestrians in crosswalks to be seen in positive contrast. The result has been a

lowering of fatalities by two-thirds. Other countries also cited the importance of

vertical illumination in pedestrian areas to enhance easy identification.

The panel recommends the consideration of vertical illuminance as a design approach

to improve safety in crosswalks and other pedestrian areas.

ENERGY-ABSORBING POLES

Energy-absorbing poles flatten upon impact, but do not break away. They are used

mainly in Finland and may be useful in the United States, in areas where breakaway

poles are not desirable.

The panel recommends investigating the use of energy-absorbing poles as an option

for selected applications.

EXPERIMENTATION

Throughout the trip, the team encountered many instances in which the Europeans

gained knowledge and experience by conducting practical experiments on active

roadways. This method permits more rapid implementation of new ideas.

The panel encourages more innovative experimentation on active roadways and test

tracks.

CRASHES AND LIGHTING

The police in Zurich, Switzerland, presented an extensive accident report. The panel

found it interesting that the police analyze the cause of automobile accidents in the

Zurich area and make recommendations for lighting applications.
OVERVIEW

xi

The panel recommends the development of reporting systems that consider the

lighting conditions at crash scenes.

EUROPEAN LIGHTING STANDARDS

There is a potential to gather a great deal of information from European lighting

documents. The panel recommends further evaluation of the European standards and

guidance documents to determine applicability in the United States.

EQUIPMENT QUALITY LEVEL AND MAINTENANCE

The European lighting equipment generally appeared to be of a high quality, and very

few roadway lighting outages were observed. The lighting systems were generally

relamped on a group basis, typically on a 3- to 5-year cycle. Maintenance of tunnel

lighting systems is generally conducted on a shorter cycle that coincides with the

cycle for washing. Necessary relamping is conducted at that time. It was stated that

the tunnels on the loop, in Paris, are cleaned every month.

The panel recommends that, when possible, higher quality lighting materials be

considered to benefit maintenance and durability for the life of the lighting systems.

In addition, maintenance personnel should be thoroughly trained to ensure the

integrity of lighting systems.

SIGNS

Several countries are beginning to eliminate sign lighting by using micro-prismatic

sheeting material. France also is moving away from fixed sign lighting by using

engineering-grade retroreflective material.

The panel recommends the use of micro-prismatic materials for unlighted overhead

and left-shoulder mounted signs.

1

INTRODUCTION

Vehicular travel is increasing throughout the world, particularly in large urban areas

and at all hours of the day and night. At night, the visual capabilities of humans are

impaired and visibility is reduced. Road crashes at night are disproportionately high

in numbers and severity, compared with daytime crashes. In the United States, the

nighttime fatality rate, weighted for kilometers traveled, is three times the daytime

figure.1,2 One of the major factors contributing to the problem is darkness, because of

its influence on a driver’s behavior and ability. Thus, roadway lighting can be an

effective tool to help ensure efficient and safe traffic movement. The U.S.

transportation community is interested in identifying cutting-edge research and

technologies in highway and roadway lighting systems, including tunnel illumination,

sign lighting, and all the methods that are used in the design of roadway lighting

systems.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

is in the process of updating its publication Informational Guide for Roadway

Lighting and recognizes the need to gather information from transportation

ministries and lighting professionals around the world. The information gathered

could provide a basis on which to update the Guide, thereby providing a better tool for

State and local authorities that design, install, operate, and maintain public lighting

systems.

Recognizing the benefits that could result from an examination of international

practices, a team of roadway lighting and safety experts was assembled. The team’s

mission was to observe and document practices that might have value to the U.S.

transportation community. In April 2000, the panel traveled to five European

countries (Finland, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands) to observe

innovative lighting practices and identify those practices that could be implemented

in the United States. This report describes the findings and observations of the group

and includes recommendations of practices that have potential for implementation in

the United States.

TRIP PLANNING

In 1990, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in coordination with AASHTO

and the Transportation Research Board (TRB), began an international transportation

technology research program. The program involves assembling teams of experts in

specific areas of transportation technology who travel overseas to identify

technologies and practices that might have immediate or near-term implementation

value in the United States. The cost of sending a group overseas and documenting the

findings is significantly less than the cost of researching the technologies and

preparing the appropriate documentation in the United States. In addition, individual

team members benefit from firsthand observation of the technology applications in a

real-world setting.

A scan trip begins when FHWA and AASHTO identify the need to observe

international practices in a particular field. A panel of experts in that field is created,

and the panel meets to plan the key aspects of the trip and develop a series of

“amplifying questions” that are submitted to the host countries in advance of the trip.

During the trip, panel members meet as a group with representatives of various
2

INTRODUCTION

organizations in each host country. Upon its return, the panel prepares a report

describing its observations and recommendations.

Objective

The objective of this study was to review and document European experience with

roadway lighting systems and advanced technologies, such as small target visibility

(STV) and counter-beam technologies, in tunnels and roadways and for special

geometries such as roundabouts. Findings may be incorporated in the new AASHTO

Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting, which is due for revision in the near

future. The scan team also set out to observe innovative technologies that may be

implemented in the United States in the near or long term.

The study panel also was interested in aspects of planning, installation, operation,

maintenance, and financing, as they relate to innovative lighting systems. In gaining

an understanding of innovative lighting systems and technologies, the panel hoped to

identify both the similarities and differences between European and U.S. systems that

might affect implementation. The panel also wanted to identify problems associated

with implementing innovative technologies and systems and the role(s) that

nongovernment, private entities had in implementing and operating lighting systems.

Finally, the panel wished to observe, firsthand, the systems and technologies in

operation and obtain information to assess their effectiveness.

Team Members

The team members represented several different perspectives including that of the

FHWA, four State departments of transportation (Alabama, Pennsylvania, Texas, and

Wisconsin), and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).

Appendix A lists the panel members, their affiliations, and short biographies. Figure 1

shows the panel members during their visit to France.

Meetings

The panel met four times throughout the

trip development and the actual tour, as

shown in table 1. The first meeting

provided an opportunity to define the areas

of greatest interest and prepare a series of

amplifying questions that the host

countries could use to develop programs for

presentation to the team.

Figure 1. The roadway lighting scan team: from left, Paul

Watson, Jim Havard, Paul Lutkevich, Karl Burkett, Balu

Ananthanarayanan, John Arens, Marie-Dominique

Gorrigan (ATI), Dale Wilken, Pat Hasson, and Jeff Unick.
3

INTRODUCTION

TABLE 1. SCHEDULE OF TEAM MEETINGS.

Date and

Location Time Frame Purpose

Washington, D.C. 1/13/00 Determine emphasis areas and

develop amplifying questions

Helsinki, Finland 4/2/00 (Beginning of tour) Plan trip actions and emphasis

areas

Lyon, France 4/9/00 (Mid-tour) Review findings

Utrecht, The Netherlands 4/16/00 (End of tour) Identify key findings and develop

preliminary panel

recommendations

Amplifying Questions

To provide the European hosts with a clearer understanding of the issues and

technologies of interest, the team prepared a series of amplifying questions that

focused on 10 major topics, as listed below:

• Future Developments

• Practical Matters

• Visibility Design

• Luminance Design

• High-Mast, Decorative, and Sign Lighting

• Tunnels

• Pavement Reflection Factors

• Counter-Beam vs. Pro-Beam Lighting

• Roundabouts

• Safety Implications

The amplifying questions are listed in appendix B.

Trip Itinerary

The tour took place during the first two weeks of April 2000. Table 2 lists the

countries and cities visited by the study panel.

TABLE 2. SCAN TEAM ITINERARY.

Dates Countries Cities

April 3 - 4 Finland Helsinki

April 5 - 7 Switzerland Zurich

April 10 France Lyon

April 11 France Paris

April 12 Belgium Liege

April 13 -14 The Netherlands Utrecht
4

INTRODUCTION

Note: Only the dates on which the panel members met with hosting officials are

listed. The table does not include travel days and weekend panel meetings.

Appendix C lists the officials with whom the panel met during the trip. The hosts

presented information on a wide variety of lighting topics, and the panel observed

many other interesting practices during the tour. Many of the hosting agencies

provided documents to the scanning team. The documents referred to in this report

are listed in appendix D.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

During the tour, the panel identified many noteworthy practices, several of which may

have current or future value to transportation agencies in the United States. Each

section of this report begins with a brief description of the topic, then documents the

panel’s observations, and concludes with a recommendation. The final section contains

a summary of the panel’s research recommendations. Appendix E lists opportunities

for the team members to share the information at conferences and through technical

articles and demonstrations.

AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN CONTRASTS

Throughout the tour, team members were continually educated on some of the

significant differences between the United States and the European countries visited.

The differences were evident in many areas, including culture, language (both

common and technical), and engineering practices. While the engineering differences

were the focus of the trip, the other differences affected the gathering of information

and also will have an impact on the ability of U.S. practitioners to implement

promising technologies or practices.

Culture

Although the focus of the trip was on innovative lighting systems, panel members had

the pleasure of experiencing the people and facilities in each country. As they traveled

on planes, trains, subways, buses, and taxis, stayed in different hotels, and interacted

with the people in each country, the panel members were able to observe many

significant cultural characteristics in the five countries. Many cultural

characteristics represent nothing more than a different way of living and give each

area its unique identity. Some cultural characteristics, however, have a direct impact

on the lighting systems in each country. Many of the cities visited have very dense,

active populations that engage in extensive walking or bicycling. Comprehensive

trolley and subway systems are used for both work and recreation. Additionally, many

automobiles compete for the limited parking. Also, large numbers of people were out

and about in the center of town at night. The team members surmised that this

nighttime activity prompted the local governments to light buildings, parks, and

monuments for the users’ comfort and security, as well as for display.

Preservation of urban centers is important to Europeans. As a result, Europeans have

a very strong sense of history and the preservation of that history. The antiquity and

historical importance of European cities is a magnet for tourists and of great

economic importance.
5

INTRODUCTION

Generally, Europeans also appear to have great respect for authority, which leads to

high compliance with traffic-control regulations and devices. In many cases, the panel

identified practices that were innovative or unique, but that would have limited

application in the United States because of basic differences in lighting systems and

cultures.

Language

The panel members were continually impressed by the ability of their hosts to

communicate in English. The majority of individuals the panel met with were fluent

in English. Even so, the panel had to learn numerous terms, both common and

technical. A few of the most common are listed below, with the European term listed

first and the equivalent American term in parentheses.

• Motorway (freeway)

• Carriageway (travelway or paved roadway)

• Dual carriageway (divided highway)

• Hard shoulder (paved shoulder)

• Columns (poles)

• Junction (intersection)

• Lorry (truck)

• Petrol (gasoline)

• Control gear (ballast)

Engineering

It was evident to the team members that their European counterparts have had many

of years of experience with designing solutions and managing lighting problems in

cities and rural areas on all classes of roadways. The panel found many solutions

practical, effective, and, more often than not, new and creative. European engineers

are utilizing new technologies faster than many of their U.S. counterparts, and

European transportation agencies appear to be more progressive in testing and

implementing new technologies and applications of lighting systems. The difference

may be due, in large part, to the aggressive and progressive research programs in the

individual countries. Many of the solutions observed on roadways were certainly more

advanced than those that are used on roadways in the United States. Examples

include the use of variable lighting levels, depending on time of day, weather, and

traffic movement; traffic guidance systems, in place of fixed, overhead lighting

systems; energy-absorbing poles, in areas where frangible poles could not be used;

master lighting plans to guide long-term development; and vertical illumination in

crosswalks.

One of the most significant engineering contrasts is the Europeans’ willingness to

gain knowledge and experience by conducting practical experiments on active

roadways. This method permits rapid implementation of innovative ideas. In defense

of the lack of experimentation in the United States, Europeans do not experience the

amount of litigation that regularly occurs in the States. Therefore, in Europe, it is

easier to do actual research on public roads.
6

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF

ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

In the area of practical matters, the panel was interested in examining details

involved with design, verification, operation, and maintenance of European roadway

lighting systems.

DESIGN

Generally, lighting is installed in Europe at a higher light level than is used in the

United States, and the roadway lighting is more uniform in appearance. The higher

lighting levels and more uniform appearance are the results of many studies over the

years that examined visual performance and visual comfort. Additionally, the panel

heard the Europeans equating higher light levels with driver comfort, which, they

believe, produces a higher level of safety. (It should be noted, however, that numerous

studies have been conducted, the results of which have not been conclusive. French

experts pointed out that while higher light levels contribute to driver comfort, they

may also create a false sense of safety, masking drivers’ levels of fatigue or

intoxication.)

In Europe, the luminance design method is widely used for standard road sections.

The illuminance design method is used for more complex situations such as

intersections, pedestrian crossings, roundabouts, residential areas, rest areas, and

bicycle-path lighting. Currently, each country visited has its own design standards

that are based on the documents produced by the Commission Internationale de

l’Eclairage (CIE). Among countries the lighting levels are approximately the same for

equivalent classes or types of roadways. In addition, each country has developed its

own guide for lighting designers to consult. The guides address matters of mounting

height, spacing, overhang, lamp wattage, lamp type, and type of luminaire.

Of all the countries visited, only Switzerland is not a member of the European Union

(EU). However, all are working through the Comité Europeén de Normalisation

(CEN), which is the European Committee for Standardization, to produce harmonized

lighting standards that will apply to all EU members.

It was common to find the design process outsourced to contractors. In Finland, the

government had negative experiences with performance specifications, because

contractors reduced installations to the minimum limit acceptable, which reduced

long-term suitability. To solve the problem, the typical specification is written, based

on experience, to read “manufacturer, catalog number, or similar.”

In Belgium, most (80 percent) of the motorways (freeways) are continuously lighted,

for safety reasons. The traffic intensities on Belgian motorways are very high and the

distances between interchanges are short (each 3 to 4 km) because of the high degree

of urbanization. In less densely populated areas, only the interchanges of the

motorways are lighted.

As noted earlier, in the Netherlands, motorway light levels have been reduced to

approximately the same range of values as those used in the United States. The

uniformity of lighting is, however, still typically European. The Dutch seem to be

satisfied with the lower light levels.
7

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

Finnish representatives mentioned that they have ceased using low-pressure sodium

(LPS) as a light source, primarily because of the cost of the lamp.

VERIFICATION

Rather than testing individual luminaires for tunnel applications, field

measurements of lighting levels are conducted on the majority of tunnels in

Switzerland. Roadways, however, are measured only if there appears to be a problem.

(In Finland, calculations are verified, but no field verification is currently conducted.)

Because lighting contractors cannot be held accountable for road surfaces, verification

is usually done in lux. The French designs are based on luminance and verified by

measuring illuminance (lux).

EQUIPMENT QUALITY LEVEL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM MAINTENANCE

The panel reviewed some of the European

lighting equipment and, in general,

concluded that it was of a higher quality

level than that generally available in the

United States. In addition, the team noted

that the relamping maintenance of the

lighting systems was very good (see figure

2). Typically, the road lighting systems are

relamped on a group basis, on a 3- to 5-year

cycle.

The French are experimenting with remote

control and monitoring of public lighting

systems. Monitoring data will include time

of operation, proper operation, automatic

troubleshooting, and problem notification.

Control includes on/off control and possible future dimming. Fixtures employ

electronic high-pressure sodium (HPS) ballasts.

As the team traveled around the five countries at night, it had many opportunities to

observe each country’s lighting. Generally, the lighting was better maintained than

comparable lighting in the United States. The team rarely observed unlit luminaires

and was impressed with the overall uniformity and quality of the lighting.

The panel noted that Europe shares a problem with the United States, i.e., matching

existing photometrics, or overall lighting performance, on an existing system. In

discussions with representatives in various countries, it became evident that the

Europeans have not achieved an effective means of maintaining the photometric

performance of the lighting systems. Once a system is designed and built, no

systematic lighting measurements are made in the long term and no controls are

placed on replacement luminaires. This causes a rapidly deteriorating performance of

the system. The scope of effort required to correct the problem and the cost involved

are enormous, which has prompted the Europeans not to require maintenance of

initial performance levels.

Figure 2. Maintenance of luminaires, Switzerland.
8

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

In Belgium, the regions or cities are responsible for the installation and maintenance

of lighting installations; contractors are hired on a low-bid basis to perform the

installation and maintenance. No controls or contract requirements are made to

maintain photometric performance of the lighting systems. Contractors are

responsible for obtaining fixtures and other replacement items. Contractors do not

typically have a lighting engineer or a lighting-design expert on staff and have little

incentive to maintain the photometric performance of existing systems.

In-depth discussions with the Belgians on maintenance issues confirmed that their

concerns are similar to some U.S. concerns. These concerns are that maintenance

personnel are not capable of determining the photometrics of the existing system and

that they are not able to determine acceptable alternatives. Contractors typically

replace luminaires with whatever is in stock. It is difficult to write and enforce

specifications for photometrics for replacement fixtures that would provide equivalent

luminance values.

The French allow the installing contractor to select fixtures to meet a luminance

calculation specification. French representatives stated that contractors do not

usually understand the luminance design method and pay little attention to it. Field

measurements of the built system are made with illuminance values. Maintenance

personnel do not attempt to match replacement fixture photometric performance to

that of initial fixtures.

The problem is more critical on lighting systems designed for lower light levels, where

poles are spaced farther apart. On such

systems, nearby fixtures will have a higher

percentage contribution at each point, and

distant fixtures will have a lower

percentage contribution, making fixture

photometric performance increasingly

important for maintenance of the system

performance.

Tunnel lighting system maintenance is

done on a shorter cycle, approximately two

to four times per year, which coincides with

the common washing and spot relamping

cycle. The panel noted that all the tunnels

on the loop in Paris are cleaned every

month, as shown in figure 3.

POWER CONSERVATION

The Swiss Energy Administration has a standard, not a law, on the lighting density

limit (watts/m2

) that sometimes affects the design light levels. The Administration

also limits the amount of annual energy consumption (KW h/yr) for lighting. To meet

the requirements, some lighting is reduced in the late night, typically from 11 PM to 5

AM.

Figure 3. Tunnel cleaning in Paris.
9

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

Although France has no limits on power

consumption, it is not unusual to dim the

lighting, to save energy, between the hours

of 10 PM and 6 AM. A recent survey by the

Center for Studies on Urban Planning,

Transport, Utilities, and Public

Constructions (CERTU) shows that onethird of French towns decrease lighting at

night, and 8 percent of the networks are

dimmed at night.

In Finland, an analysis of lighting-system

costs over 20 years shows that electric

energy is two-thirds of the total cost. To

save energy, some Finnish roadways have

high/low-style controls, and light levels are

lowered. The motoring public has not

complained.

MASTER LIGHTING PLAN

Throughout the scan, the panel noted that

a number of cities had developed formal

master lighting plans. The plans accounted

for economic and cultural changes, the

public image of the city, and technological

developments. The benefits of such a plan

are that it organizes the different functions

of lighting, plans the different parts of the

city, and schedules the expenditures. For example, the City of Paris has developed a

master urban lighting plan that is based on the safety of the roads, beautification, and

security for goods and people (figures 4 and 5). Lighting is employed to change the

image of the environment, re-link different parts of the city, and indicate the nature of

the site. Essentially, planners consider

urban lighting to be one component of

managing the city.

ENERGY-ABSORBING POLES

CEN has developed a new standard for

breakaway and energy-absorbing poles,

number EN12767, “Passive safety of

support structures for road equipment.”

New types of poles meeting the standard

and suitable for wind speeds of up to 23 m/

s (approx. 50 mi/h) have been installed.

Figure 6 shows an example of how the

energy-absorbing pole works. The panel

Figures 4 & 5. Master lighting plans, Paris.

Figure 6. Results of crash test of energy-absorbing

pole.
10

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

thought that this item would have applicability in areas where it is not currently

advisable to use breakaway poles.

Additionally, the panel was shown several bored-center-hole methods used in Finland

to make wooden poles break away when impacted by a vehicle.

Crash testing of roadside devices is based on CEN standard procedures. The CEN

procedures are directly modeled after the U.S. crash-test criteria specified in National

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350, with modifications; for

example, pickup trucks are not included in European tests.

LITIGATION

Litigation about lighting did not appear to

be an issue in Europe, as it is in the United

States, which may be explained, in part, by

differences in the legal systems. The

European approach also is different. For

example, the Dutch have developed a

national lighting policy that includes

dimming. It was pointed out to the team:

“If you follow the policy, no one can sue

when you turn the lights out.”

LIGHT POLLUTION

The team was not made aware of any

formal sky glow restrictions in Europe.

There is certainly, however, an awareness

of the problem as well as a technical

report, Guidelines for Minimizing Skyglow,

CIE 126, 1997. Results of several studies

by R-Tech in Belgium on the amount of

uplight generated by various types of

luminaires were presented to the panel in

both France and Belgium and are shown in

figures 7 and 8. In later feedback the panel

was told that, in Belgium, the upward light

ratio of the luminaires is limited. We also

were informed that the light pollution

figures are being updated and that this

information will be available in the fall of

2001. To reduce the total amount of

upward flux, the following guidelines have to be followed:

1. Reduce upward light output ratio (ULOR) as much as possible.

2. Maximize the utilization factor (K) in such a way that it should approach the

downward light output ratio (DLOR) as much as possible.

Figures 7 & 8. Results of R-Tech’s study on light

pollution.
11

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

3. In the case of a roadway lighting designed in luminance, maximize the

luminance efficiency expressed in cd/m2/lux.

4. In the case of an outdoor installation designed in illuminance, apply strictly

the requested illuminance level.

WARRANTS

Each country visited had different warrants, as noted below.

Belgium

A large proportion of paved roadways in Belgium are lighted. The continuous lighting

of the motorways between interchanges has a luminance level of 1 cd/m2 in the

Flemish region and 1.5 cd/m2 in the Wallonia region; the interchanges are lit to a

luminance level of 1.5 cd/m2

.

Switzerland

The official practice on Swiss federal highways (motorways) is to light only junctions

(intersections). Highways in urban areas are lighted in the neighborhood of lighted

urban roads or in areas with higher risks. The normal roads (mixed traffic) are

mainly lighted in urban areas.

Finland

In Finland, warrants are very detailed, and safety is used as a justification for the

installation of lighting. One of the special reasons cited for lighting two-lane roadways

was the existence of an adjacent, lighted pedestrian way or lighted bike path.

Approximately 20 percent of the roads in Finland are lit.

France

In France, responsibilities for lighting and its maintenance vary according to the

“owner” of the roadway. The national government is responsible for national roads and

motorways, counties are responsible for county roads, and cities for city roads.

Individual towns are responsible for the lighting of national and county roads within

an urban area. National roads must be lighted as follows:

> 50,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) General lighting

25,000 to 50,000 ADT with interchanges < 5 km apart General lighting

25,000 to 50,000 ADT with interchanges > 5 km apart Interchange only

< 25,000 ADT Interchange only

The Netherlands

As in France, individual towns in the Netherlands establish their own lighting

policies. At the national level, specific warrants were written in 1990, referred to as

the “1990 Warrants.” The warrants to install lighting are as follows:
12

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

Always Light:

• Four or more lanes

• Dual carriageway with 1,500 vehicles/hour/lane peak

• Single carriageway with 2,000 vehicles/hour/lane peak

• Single carriageway with 1,800 vehicles/hour/lane peak, if slow-moving vehicles

are present

Since 1997, an additional assessment is required, as follows:

1. Does the road meet the 1990 Warrants?

2. Does the road go through or near a scenic area?

a. If no, then install lighting

b. If yes, then move to No. 3

3. Conduct a supplementary study to consider lighting alternatives.

a. Can glare screens be used?

b. Is guidance lighting possible?

c. Can the lighting be switched or dimmed?

d. Is lighting acceptable, in view of cost/benefit?

4. Reach a conclusion. If the decision is to install lighting, install extra measures

such as the ability to dim or turn off during late night.

As of the team’s visit, a new lighting policy for highways was being written. It

contains the following elements:

1. Traffic Safety: only enough light for traffic safety.

2. Energy Efficiency: goal of 10 percent improvement by 2010; not trading lives

for energy consumption.

3. Environmental Consequences: (see above additional 1997 assessment).

4. Effects on Road Capacity: based on research at the Technical University of

Delft, addition of standard lighting shows a 4 percent improvement.

(Currently, the Dutch studies do not include the effects of dynamic lighting on

road capacity.)

5. Administration and Maintenance of the Roadway.

Environmentalists in the Netherlands have raised consciousness about potential

impacts of lighting on animal behavior. Humans, too, are included in the debates –

some people want to live where it is dark at night. The efforts of environmentalists

are changing the lighting policy.
13

PRACTICAL MATTERS OF ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Develop master lighting design plans to improve the coordination of roadway

and urban lighting in such matters as lighting levels, styles, and themes for

safety, security, and beautification.

• Investigate the use of energy-absorbing poles as an option for selected

applications. Careful investigation should be made into the adequacy of these

devices, considering the wide range of vehicle mass and speed on U.S.

highways.

• When possible, consider quality lighting materials to benefit maintenance and

durability for the life of the lighting systems.

• Thoroughly train maintenance personnel to maintain the integrity of the

lighting systems.
14

VISIBILITY DESIGN

The IESNA recently approved a revision to its publication RP-8, American National

Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. The revision includes three methods for

designing continuous lighting systems for roadways: illuminance, luminance, and

STV.

DESIGN

One of the primary reasons for conducting the European study was to meet with

leading experts in the field of roadway lighting to find out about their experiences

with using a visibility design metric.

While the panel found that a lot of research is being done in the area of visibility, none

of the research has yet been implemented into everyday practice. In more than one

country, team members heard the words, “We have no practical experience,” when it

came to applying the visibility design techniques.

Because of a negative experience, the Swiss have changed their approach to lighting

crosswalks. They used to shine lights directly across the crosswalk, but discovered

that, when at the curb, the pedestrian was less visible because the background varied,

from buildings in some places to darkness in others. The Swiss now light crosswalks

from the side, so the pedestrian is highlighted in positive contrast. Later input from

the French confirmed the Swiss approach, but included the caveat that the main risk

is that pedestrians often believe they are seen by drivers whatever the light

distribution and weather conditions, even if they are not in the zebra marking.

The panel was shown roadways in Finland that appeared to have relatively

nonuniform lighting. It was thought these lighting systems might provide a higher

visibility level. Subsequent calculations by a team member have, indeed, shown that

this road exceeded any luminance and STV requirements in the new ANSI/IESNA

RP-8-00. Naturally, the ultimate measure of the quality of this type of design will be

the change in the number of crashes. Crash data were not available at the time of the

visit.

RESEARCH

The panel was pleased to notice the amount of visibility research being done in both

France and Belgium. Team members saw spatial frequency analysis by Fast Fourier

Transforms being used by several people (Eric Dumont, Philippe Boogaerts, etc.) to

describe information content of a scene or border (edge) contrast. Additionally, Mr.

Boogaerts indicated that the Fast Fourier Transform is also used in the processing of

the images of charge coupled device (CCD) cameras. Both countries have selected the

visibility model and equations of Dr. Werner Adrian and are using three-dimensional

targets. Representatives in both countries told the panel that the visibility concept

provided a more complete approach to lighting design and supplemented the

information provided by the luminance approach that is commonly used throughout

Europe. The approach, which utilizes three-dimensional targets, results in very

uniform lighting (see figures 9 and 10).

The use of three-dimensional targets by the French and Belgians provides contrasts

within the target, thereby making the target more visible.
15

VISIBILITY DESIGN

Figure 10 shows a typical threedimensional target used by the Belgians to

develop simulation software. The Belgians 3

found good correlation between panel

ratings and STV calculations for 20 percent

targets, but stated that “the visual task of a

driver cannot be considered as detection,

within a useful time, of unexpected small

static targets.” They further stated, “The

use of STV assumes full use of (factors)

affecting visibility and knowledge of the

limitations of the concept.” They were

adamant about the need to include

headlights into the calculation of visibility.

Based on extensive research done by

Jacques Lecocq, the French have proposed

that a simple minimum target visibility

level (VL) metric is all that is necessary.

Mr. Lecocq’s research is based on

translating a model roadway into a

computer program that allowed many

observer trials and the rapid collection of

data (figure 11). The panel noted that Mr.

Lecocq’s model relied on approximations of

key factors. These factors include the use of

Lambertian distribution calculation of

light reflected from the pavement and the

shadow effect of multifaceted targets. Mr.

Lecocq noted that, as targets get larger, the

visibility always becomes greater. Large

targets develop contrasts within

themselves, as opposed to small targets,

which are always viewed against their

background, i.e., the roadway surface.

The nine possible target positions are

shown in figure 12, a view of Mr. Lecocq’s software. The software permitted

experimentation that determined the minimum visibility level needed for adequate

lighting.

Based on an R2 roadway, a 0.35-s observation time, and a 20 percent reflectance

target, the results of the study indicate that a minimum visibility level of 7 is needed

for good visibility.

Using a ray-tracing computer program called “Radiance,” the Belgians have developed

synthesized computer targets that replicate real-world, illuminated, threedimensional targets on a demonstration roadway, as shown in figures 13a, b, and c.

Figure 9. Uniform vs. nonuniform lighting.

Figure 10. Typical three-dimensional target.
16

VISIBILITY DESIGN

Studies utilizing the synthesized images

have shown excellent correlation between

the calculated levels of visibility and the

subject assessments of the observers for

both flat 20-cm x 20-cm and spherical

targets (appendix D).

In addition, the Belgians believe that their

work shows that good uniformity on a

poorly lighted (<1 cd/m2

) road is

insufficient. While the VL does improve as

the roadway becomes more nonuniform,

they believe that Belgian drivers would not

accept the appearance of the roadway

(figures 14 and 15). Later input from Mr.

Lecocq further clarified that this increase

in VL only applies to the average of several

targets in the sense of mean values.

Further, if one considers one target at a

time whose reflection factor is variable, a

flat one can be made visible or invisible

simply by choosing an appropriate

reflection factor. The flat target can even

play the role of a type of specious amplifier

for the average of individual VLs. This is

generally not the case for a spherical

target. On a roadway with poor

longitudinal uniformity, typically all

targets are either very visible or invisible

depending on location. In this case,

however, a corresponding mean value is

not related to the ability to see any

obstacle at any place on the road at a given

time by the driver.

The Belgians 4

 have found that headlights

impact VL and should be included in calculations. Also, they believe that the VL

approach is not usable in cluttered environments, i.e., environments with off-roadway

sources, such as towns and residential areas. Therefore, the VL approach should be

limited to the lighting of main roadways in rural areas.

Finally, the Belgians noted that, with the addition of the visibility design approach,

lighting engineers are no longer limited to “producing luminance,” but can also

“produce visibility.”

CROSSWALKS

The Swiss recently enacted a law recognizing that the pedestrian has the right of way

in a crosswalk. The initial result of the new law was an increase in vehicle-pedestrian

Figure 11. Model roadway installation.

Figure 12. View of Lecocq’s computer modeling

software.
17

VISIBILITY DESIGN

crashes. If circumstances in Switzerland

are similar to those in the United States,

the vast majority of pedestrian fatalities

occur after dark. The Swiss studied the

crosswalks and have based new crosswalkand roundabout-lighting recommendations

on the visibility principle of highlighting

objects in positive contrast. As shown in

figure 16, poles are positioned so that

pedestrians are seen in positive contrast,

when light levels are below 2 cd/m2

. No

special pole positioning is required for light

levels at or above 2 cd/m2

. Installation of

the new lighting resulted in a two-thirds

reduction in pedestrian-vehicle crashes,

but an increase in minor vehicle-vehicle

crashes, typically “rear-enders,” resulting

from quick stops.

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

• European research suggests that

the visibility concept may provide a

more complete approach to lighting

design, though more experience is

needed. The panel recommends

experimentation and research on

active roadways.

• The panel recommends the

consideration of vertical

illuminance as a design approach to

improve pedestrian safety in

crosswalks and other pedestrian

areas. It also recommends research

into the relative benefits between

positive- and negative-contrast

lighting techniques and

development of appropriate levels.

Figure 13a. Demonstration roadway with threedimensional spheres and square, flat targets.

Figure 13b. Photographic image (zoom) of targets.

Figure 13c. Synthesized image of targets.
18

VISIBILITY DESIGN

Figure 14. Synthesized configuration on road surface

(R1 – q0 = 0.1).

Figure 15. Synthesized configuration on road surface

(R4 – q0 = 0.1).

Figure 16. Lighting scheme for crosswalks,

Switzerland.
19

LUMINANCE DESIGN AND PAVEMENT

REFLECTION FACTORS

LUMINANCE DESIGN TECHNIQUE

For 25 years, the luminance design

technique has been successfully used on

major motorways and tunnels in Europe.

This method is based on the way the

human eye sees; that is, road surfaces are

made visible by light reflected from them

and entering the eye of the observer.

The panel saw many examples of good

lighting that resulted from the use of this

design technique. Examples are shown in

figures 17, 18, and 19.

European roadways are lit to levels more

than twice as high as those in the United

States, and with better uniformity. Belgian

experts expressed the opinion that a high

degree of pavement uniformity yields good

driver comfort. They are confident that

driver comfort equates to driver safety.

They were not, however, aware of any

formal studies linking driver comfort to

safety.

Based on the Belgian experience, experts

suggest that roadways lit to levels between

1 and 2 cd/m2 produce good visibility, while

lighting the roadway to less than 1 cd/m2

does not yield good visibility. In addition to

light level, good visibility in wet conditions

also depends on the locations of luminaires.

For example, in Finland, the team observed

lighting over the roadway.

PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS

AND R-TABLES

Because the luminance design method

depends on road surfaces being made

visible by light reflected from roads and

entering the eye of the observer, the

reflection properties of pavement become

an integral part of the lighting-design

process. The existing pavement reflection

tables, the R-tables, were published in 1976

and have been used in luminance design

Figure 17. Wevelgem Tunnel, Belgium.

Figure 18. Highway near Helsinki Airport, Finland.

Figure 19. Highway near Helsinki, Finland.
20

LUMINANCE DESIGN AND PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS

worldwide ever since. The R-tables refer to pavement reflection characteristics under

dry road-surface conditions only.

The R-tables are based on two pavement properties: S1, the specularity or pavement

shininess; and Qo, the lightness or degree of grayness, from white to black, of a road’s

surface.

The range of the S1 value determines the class in which pavement is assigned, R1

through R4, as shown in table 3.

TABLE 3. R-TABLE VALUES, BY PAVEMENT CLASS.

Pavement

Class Standard S1 S1 Range

R1 0.25 < 0.42

R2 0.58 >0.42 but < 0.85

R3 1.11 >0.85 but <1.35

R4 1.55 >1.35

For accuracy, the average luminance coefficient, Qo, must be determined for the

particular pavement under consideration. Typically, the values for Qo are R1 = 0.1, R2

and R3 = 0.7, and R4 = 0.8. However, these typical numbers do vary.

In Belgium, the most commonly encountered road pavements were bituminous

asphalts (R3, with Qo from 0.07 to 0.10 cd/m2

/lux) and porous asphalts (R2, with Qo

from 0.05 to 0.08 cd/ m2

/lux). French experts use the real R-value of the roadway, if

possible. For quick estimating purposes, however, the following luminance/illuminance

conversions for roadway lighting are used in France:

1 cd/m2 is produced by 8 lux on light-colored pavement.

1 cd/m2 is produced by 18 lux on dark-colored pavement.

1 cd/m2 is produced by 14 lux on average-colored pavement.

Swiss, French, and Belgian experts mentioned that a refined analysis of pavement

properties is conducted for major projects. The analysis requires that a sample of the

future road pavement be measured in the laboratory and the matrix of the reduced

reflection coefficient be incorporated into the specifications, along with the minimum

required lighting levels and uniformities for the project.

To obtain realistic R-values when evaluating an actual road surface, the Belgians

evaluate several core samples and average the results. Outliers are discarded.

Furthermore, results of studies have shown that, in the case of porous asphalts, it

typically takes between 6 months and a year for the pavement to stabilize in order to

obtain reliable R-values.

Figure 20 illustrates why field measurements should be delayed until after the

pavement has stabilized. Note that the left lane is not traveled on and is in nearly “as

poured” condition, while the right lane shows the typical change in reflection
21

LUMINANCE DESIGN AND PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS

properties caused by traffic. Note that the wheel-rut paths also have a much different

specularity than the other pavement areas, which makes it difficult to measure the

luminance of the overall pavement. All measured luminance values must be qualified

as to the location on the pavement, but methods for determining the overall

luminance value from collections of individual points has not been established in

Europe or in the United States. This

example illustrates the difficulty typically

encountered when attempting to enforce

luminance specifications or when verifying

designs.

Luminance measurements taken on the

two lanes show the right lane, at 140 cd/m2

,

to have twice the luminance level as the

one on the left, 70 cd/m2

.

The Swiss noted problems with standard

R-tables and have obtained different

results initially than those designed with

standard R-tables. In an additional

conversation with Werner

Riemenschneider, however, he clarified that

after the pavement had aged for 6 to 12 months, the Swiss typically found that the

measured average values were within 15 percent of the average design value, usually

on the high side.

In the good cases the Belgians noted discrepancies of less than 10 percent, when

comparing measured luminance levels against calculated levels for pavements, where

the reflection characteristics have been determined.

NEW TYPES OF PAVEMENT

As mentioned earlier, pavement types

have been invented since the original Rtables were conceived. The French noted

increased usage of new surfaces over the

past 10 years. These surfaces include a

number of wearing courses and porous

asphalt, i.e., water-draining pavement.

Porous asphalt stabilizes in a unique

way. It becomes more diffuse and its

brightness increases, as is shown in

figures 21 and 22.

Figures 21 and 22 show computergenerated images of the reflection

characteristics when viewed from typical

angles down the roadway. The angle

most frequently encountered in the past

Figure 20. Milchbuck Tunnel, Switzerland.

Figure 21. New porous asphalt.

Ms. Corine Brusque of the French LaboratoireCentral des Ponts et Chaussées.
22

LUMINANCE DESIGN AND PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS

is the 1-degree downward view. The

French and the Swiss suggested that

additional viewing angles were needed

because of lower speeds and urban

environments. The angles most

frequently mentioned were 3 and 5

degrees.

Appendix D lists a paper by Ms. Corine

Brusque that describes how to design

lighting for water-draining pavements.

The Dutch noted that this type of opengraded asphalt pavement seems to

produce better visibility than the older,

dense asphalt.

In Switzerland, experts emphasized the

importance of dry roadways when conducting field measurements. There are, however,

only a couple of summer months during which pavements are dry enough to be

measured. In addition, the team heard warnings about dew points and pavement

ages. It was noted that, during observations in cold weather (typically October

through December), with a clear sky, when conditions were under the dew point, a

water film could suddenly appear on the roadway. This film could provide a

reflectance differential of 200 percent. Given these difficulties and variations in

pavement reflection characteristics, the Swiss typically verify lighting installations

with incident light measurements.

PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS: OTHER CONDITIONS

In addition to the R-tables, N-tables are applied in countries that use additional

“whiteners” in pavements, which causes the pavement to become very bright. The

French noted that, specifically for tunnel lighting, they are researching a special

pavement that has white gravel and cream-colored bitumen. Currently, it appears as

though the average

luminance

coefficient, Qo,

changes downward,

over a 3-year

period. This is still

under

investigation.

The Scandinavian

countries have

developed W-tables

for use on the wet

roadway conditions

encountered there

(see figure 23).

Figure 22. Porous asphalt, after 12 months.

Figure 23. Wet roadway in Finland (inset, close-up of pavement). Ms. Corine Brusque of the French Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées.
23

LUMINANCE DESIGN AND PAVEMENT REFLECTION FACTORS

In Finland, the standard R- and W-tables are used, while the other countries that the

team visited use only the R-tables. In Switzerland, the W-tables that were developed

in Scandinavia are not used. Rather, the Swiss studied 10 typical installations and,

based on experience, determined that, for their purposes, 2 cd/m2 under dry conditions

was also adequate in wet conditions. Swiss experts found no operational difficulties

with that approach.

PANEL RECOMMENDATION

• Pavement reflectance is an important element of lighting design. The panel

recommends that more research, including field measurements, be conducted

in order to overcome the acknowledged inadequacy of the R-tables.
24

TUNNELS

As mentioned earlier, tunnel lighting has been upgraded in the past 10 years. As

defined in the technical report, Guide for the Lighting of Road Tunnels and

Underpasses, CIE 88, 1990, good tunnel lighting should “ensure that traffic, both

during day and nighttime, can approach, pass through, and leave a tunnel, at the

designated speed, with a degree of safety and comfort not less than that along

adjacent stretches of open road.”

In the past 10 years, techniques for excavating tunnels have improved, making

tunnels a more attractive option. For example, Finland is currently working on a

bypass that goes under, not around, the City of Helsinki. Additionally, while typical

tunnels are straight drive-throughs, the team observed tunnels in Europe that

contained merges and diverges and the

team even visited an underground

roundabout (figure 24). The underground

roundabout, which is part of a mass transit

station at Frauenfeld, in the Thurgau

Canton, Switzerland, includes not only

through roadways, but also an entrance

and exit to an underground parking lot

(figure 25).

Swiss experts believe that good wall

luminance is necessary to provide good

guidance for motorists. Additionally, they

have observed that most people perceive

tunnels lit with fluorescent sources to be

brighter and more comfortable than

tunnels lit on the road to the same level

with point sources, probably because of the

higher wall luminance normally attained

with fluorescent luminaires. Although

various light sources are being used, long

tunnels are generally lit with electronically

ballasted, dimmable fluorescents. That

approach easily adapts to the integrated

control systems used on all the tunnels

that the team observed. The integrated

systems use a luminance meter to adjust

the light level in the threshold zone.

Lighting control systems can be integrated

into the traffic management systems, and

traffic volume can be added to the control

elements. (Traffic control centers are

discussed later under Future

Developments.)

The primary difficulty in tunnel lighting is determining the correct lighting level to be

installed in the threshold. In theory, “just enough light” is necessary to meet the

Figure 24. Underground roundabout, Switzerland.

Figure 25. Underground roundabout entrance and

exit feeds to underground parking.
25

TUNNELS

requirement cited in CIE 88. Less than

“just enough light” causes the traffic to

slow down or frequent crashes to occur.

Higher lighting than necessary wastes

money, both on installed and maintenance

costs. Determinations become more

complex with the realization that the

lighting decision typically has to be made

before the tunnel is built. For all of these

reasons, the panel was shown more tunnel

lighting than any other type of lighting.

The team members were greatly impressed

with what they saw (figures 26 to 30).

In the pilot installation of the Wevelgem

Tunnel, the threshold luminance of the

counter-beam system (Lth, CBL: 400 cd/m2)

was purposely set equal to the threshold

luminance of the symmetric system (Lth,

Sym: 400 cd/m2) in order to evaluate the

visibility of the targets. Figure 30 shows

how the counter-beam lighting is washed

out by the outside natural light. This lack

of negative contrast in the beginning of the

threshold results from daylight penetration

(up to 70 m), reflected light from the walls

and pavement, and veiling, caused by the

natural brightness present in the

atmospheric luminance (LATM). The

Belgians found that, whatever the lighting

system, there were always invisibility

zones for a target with a fixed reflectance

factor. These zones are of variable length

and position from one system to another.

Belgians do not lower the threshold

luminance requirement when counterbeam lighting is used.

When using counter-beam lighting, the Swiss noted that large trucks traveling

through tunnels (figure 31) absorb the light coming from the luminaries, creating a

lower light level as well as shadows. Also, black trucks are hard to see. Regardless, the

Swiss still believe that counter-beam offers the best solution, except in tunnels with a

very high level of truck traffic.

Based on experience, the Swiss believe that if sunscreens are used, they must be

waterproof. A screen that is not watertight will allow water to drip on the roadway

and refreeze.

Figure 26. Tunnel in Lyon, France.

Figure 27. Tunnel in Helsinki, Finland.
26

TUNNELS

In the Netherlands, counter-beam lighting,

instead of sunscreens, has become more

widely used because it is less expensive.

Typically, the threshold luminance levels

used in the Netherlands, at a design speed

of 120 km/h, are 200 to 250 cd/m2

, based on

using counter-beam (symmetrical is

higher). Dutch designers believe that the

current CEN document is 1.5 to 2 times too

high and that CIE recommendations are

about 20 percent too low.

Recently, the Belgians told us that the

Belgian designers have shown, through a

European survey made in the European

Working Group for Tunnel Lighting (CEN/

WG6) that, for the large majority of the

tunnels, countries rigorously follow the CIE

88 (1990) recommendations for the

threshold zone lighting. Their experience

with these lighting levels has been

reported positively.

In addition, the Dutch have developed a

design method called the “Black Window.”

The Black Window is used for deciding

whether lighting is required for short

tunnels. Figure 32 is a diagram of the

method, and figure 33 illustrates actual

examples.

In the diagram, A, B, C, and D define the

area of the entrance portal. E, F, G, and H

define the exit.

For D < 20%, lighting is installed.

For D > 50%, no lighting is required.

For D > 20% or < 50%, a study is required.

The method examines what percentage of

the typical automobile that passes through

the tunnel is visible. If it is 30 percent

visible, then no lighting is installed. If it is

less than 30 percent visible, then lighting is

installed. Lighting is not required on either

of the examples in figure 33, because more

than 30 percent of a typical automobile is

visible.

Figure 28. Tunnel at Schipol Airport, the

Netherlands. The sunscreens are not actually

needed, because of the counter-beam threshold

lighting. They were left in place for aesthetic

reasons.

Figure 29. Milchbuck Tunnel, Switzerland.

Figure 30. Wevelgem Tunnel, Belgium.
27

TUNNELS

Based on information from Japan, where tunnel

walls are painted a dark color, the Dutch

conducted an interesting experiment on the

benefits of dark or light walls in tunnels. They

eliminated cleaning on one of the tunnels for a

period of one and a half years and had no

change in crash rates.

Figure 31. Milchbuck Tunnel, Switzerland.

Figure 32. Black Window method, the

Netherlands.

Figure 33. Examples of Black Windows.
28

COUNTER-BEAM AND PRO-BEAM LIGHTING

Today, tunnels are lit to high enough levels to ensure that traffic, both during day and

nighttime, can approach, pass through, and leave a tunnel, at the designated speed,

with a degree of safety and comfort not less than that along adjacent stretches of open

road.

The luminaires that are used to accomplish this typically have one of three types of

distribution and effect on objects. The

distribution effects are shown in Figures

34 a, b, and c.

In figure 34a, light is symmetrically

distributed, particularly when linear

sources are used. Although a uniform

luminance is produced throughout the

tunnel, relatively low contrast values are

generated.

In figure 34b, light is asymmetrically

distributed, with the strongest part of the

beam directed toward the approaching

driver. This type of lighting provides high

pavement luminance and low object

luminance, creating negative contrast.

In figure 34c, light is asymmetrically

distributed, with the strongest part of the

beam directed away from the approaching

driver, in the direction of traffic flow. This

type of lighting provides high object

luminance and low pavement luminance,

creating positive contrast.

The panel was most interested in learning

about Europe’s experience with the

different distributions. The French experts

suggested that targets disappear under

pro-beam and do not use it. In fact, while

all of the countries visited have

experimented with using pro-beam for threshold lighting in tunnels, none of them use

it.

The Swiss have evaluated counter-beam, pro-beam, and symmetric lighting systems.

Field measurements and lighting calculations have indicated that, if counter-beam

yields a 100 percent light level, then symmetric with the same lumen output yields 70

percent, and pro-beam with the same lumen output yields about 30 percent. This is

the case on the mostly used asphalt concrete road surfaces of type R3. On type R1

(less specular) the gain in yield is smaller. The Swiss discovered some problems with

counter-beam installations where there is a lot of large truck traffic. Counter-beam

lighting is preferred in Switzerland.

Figure 34a. Symmetrical (bisymmetrical) light

distribution.

Figure 34b. Counter-beam light distribution.

Figure 34c. Pro-beam light distribution.
29

COUNTER-BEAM AND PRO-BEAM LIGHTING

Until now, the Belgians have only used symmetrical lighting. They have, however,

conducted extensive experiments and found that the best angle (with the vertical) for

the main beam in a counter-beam system is 56 degrees.

The Dutch use counter-beam lighting because it is more cost-effective than

sunscreens.
30

HIGH-MAST, DECORATIVE, AND SIGN LIGHTING

HIGH-MAST LIGHTING

The term high-mast lighting generally refers to a group of luminaires mounted at a

height of 20 m or more. Its use in interchange lighting leaves the area free of poles

and provides motorists with an uncluttered view of the interchange. With careful pole

placement, glare is much less of a problem than in conventional lighting. In addition,

maintenance can usually be done without disturbing the traffic flow.

In Finland, the panel was shown a nearly completed interchange that was lit with

asymmetric floods mounted on high-mast poles. The lighting on that interchange was

installed before construction was completed, thereby making it possible to continue

work on the interchange after dark (figure 35).

Belgium has several existing interchanges using poles up to 35 m in height (figure

36), but does not have any new high-mast installations. Existing interchanges use

either HPS sources, in 400 to

1,000 watt, or 131- to 180-

watt LPS, with an

asymmetrical photometric

distribution.

Other than in Finland and

Belgium, the panel did not

observe any new high-mast

installations. The French

indicated that high-mast

lighting was used quite a lot

in the 1970s and ’80s, but is

not currently used.

DECORATIVE LIGHTING

The illuminance design

technique is used to light

residential, small town, intersection, and

conflict areas. The new urban lighting

trend in Europe is the use of indirect

lighting. Several examples of decorative

lighting are shown in figures 37 through

46.

SIGN LIGHTING

In Finland and Switzerland, overhead,

directional signs are currently lit with topmounted luminaires. To save money,

however, the Finns are moving away from

sign lighting by using micro-prismatic

sheeting material. In France, engineeringFigure 35. High-mast lighting, Finland (inset, close-up of luminaire).

Figure 36. High-mast lighting, Belgium.
31

HIGH-MAST, DECORATIVE, AND SIGN LIGHTING

Figure 37. Parking lot lighting, Helsinki,

Finland.

Figure 38. Parking lot lighting, Helsinki Airport,

Finland.

Figure 39. To aid recognition, vertical and semispherical

illuminance is used in pedestrian areas.
32

HIGH-MAST, DECORATIVE, AND SIGN LIGHTING

Figures 40a,

b, & c.

Examples of

typical

decorative

lighting in

Zurich,

Switzerland.

Figures 41. & 42. Downtown Helsinki, Finland.

grade, retroreflective material has been used,

and the French also are moving away from fixed

sign lighting.
33

HIGH-MAST, DECORATIVE, AND SIGN LIGHTING

Figures 43. & 44. Decorative

lighting in Finland (inset,

detail of luminaire).

Figures 45. & 46. Zurich, Switzerland, at night.

Figure 47. Micro-prismatic sheeting material for signs

in Finland.

PANEL RECOMMENDATION

• The panel recommends the use of

micro-prismatic sheeting materials

for unlighted signs mounted

overhead and on the left shoulder.
34

ROUNDABOUTS

During the tour, the panel observed many

new or relatively new roundabouts in Europe.

Team members were told that civil and traffic

engineers prefer to use roundabouts instead

of traffic signals for reasons of safety and

efficiency. In addition, in some places,

roundabouts are popular with local

communities, thus generating demand for

more new intersections of that type. Figure 48

shows a roundabout in suburban Paris.

The panel visited the Philips Lighting facility

in France. Representatives of Philips

indicated that the goal of roundabout lighting

was to provide a total view of the roundabout

geometry from three levels: long distance,

nearby (100 m), and at the entrance. Figure

49 shows a roundabout at the Philips facility.

ROUNDABOUT CATEGORIES

The French divide roundabouts into the

following three categories:

Urban location Systematically lit

Suburban location Recommend lighting

Rural location Not lighted, unless there

is already lighting in the

vicinity

LUMINAIRE LOCATIONS

In France, outer edge or central island

luminaire locations are permitted. In Finland,

Belgium, and Switzerland, roundabouts are

lit from the outer edge.

Swiss and Belgian designers initially lit from

the center, but found poor results with

negative contrast in crosswalks and

roundabouts. The Swiss design specifically

addresses pedestrian crosswalks and

roundabouts by providing positive contrast.

Figure 48. Roundabout, Paris, France.

Figure 49. Roundabout at Philips

Outdoor Lighting Application Center,

La Valbonne, France.
35

ROUNDABOUTS

Swiss and Belgian experts believe that

proper placement of luminaires (figure 50)

will provide positive contrast on

pedestrians and automobiles, thereby

improving recognition. In addition, highly

visible (retroreflective) materials are used

extensively on the curb (or periphery) of

the center of the island to enhance its

conspicuity.

ROUNDABOUT LIGHT LEVELS

In Finland, designers strive to have 30

percent more light on the roundabout than

on the approaching roads. Swiss

roundabouts are designed for homogeneous

lighting at a level 50 percent above the best approach road.

In Belgium, roundabout design is for a 40-lux horizontal illuminance light level with a

uniformity greater than 40 percent. In addition, Belgian experts have found that

providing a 15-lux vertical level at 2 m from the outside edge of the central island

improves the general perception of the roundabout. The central island has to be

materialized by vertical (retroreflective) elements on the central island with a

minimal frontal surface. They believe that the entrances of the roundabout (120 to

150 m before the roundabout) also have to be lighted.

PANEL RECOMMENDATION

• The panel recommends that the European experience in roundabout lighting

be synthesized and consolidated in the AASHTO Lighting Guide for U.S.

application.

Figure 50. Swiss recommendation for luminaire

placement.
36

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

The Swiss Council for Accident Prevention is a private, politically independent

foundation, which has been legally entrusted with the task of preventing accidents in

the areas of road traffic, sports, home, and leisure. Tables 4 and 5 include comparative

information given to the team members by Mr. Paul Reichardt of the Swiss Council.

Table 4 gives the impression that the United States has a very serious problem.

However, when the raw data are normalized with millions of km driven (table 5), the

United States is comparable with the best of the countries cited. The United States

and the countries that the team visited are highlighted in the tables. The data are

from the International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD).

TABLE 4. FATALITIES IN ROAD ACCIDENTS.

 COUNTRY 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

United States 40,716 41,798 42,065 41,967 -

Turkey - - - 6,735 6,308

Sweden 589 572 537 541 -

Korea 11,600 11,871 14,551 13,343 10,416

Poland 6,744 6,900 6,359 7,310 7,080

Portugal 2,504 2,711 2,730 - 2,425

New Zealand 580 581 514 540 -

Netherlands 1,298 1,334 1,180 1,163 1,066

Norway 283 305 255 303 352

Luxembourg 74 - - 60 57

Japan 12,768 12,670 11,674 11,254 10,805

Iceland 12 24 10 15 27

Ireland 404 437 453 472 -

Italy 7,104 7,033 6,688 6,724 -

Hungary 1,562 1,589 1,370 1,391 1,371

Greece 2,253 2,411 2,063 2,199 -

Great Britain 3,650 3,621 3,598 3,599 -

Finland 480 441 404 438 -

France 9,019 8,891 8,541 8,444 8,918

Spain 5,615 5,751 5,483 5,604 -

Denmark 546 582 514 489 -

Germany 9,814 9,454 8,758 8,549 7,776

Czech Republic 1,637 1,588 1,568 1,597 1,360

Switzerland 679 692 616 587 597

Canada 3,263 3,347 3,092 3,064 -

Belgium 1,692 1,449 1,356 1,364 -

Australia 1,938 2,013 1,970 1,767 1,763

Austria 1,338 1,210 1,027 1,105 963
37

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

TABLE 5. FATALITIES PER 1 BILLION VEHICLE KM TRAVELED (VKT).

 COUNTRY 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

United States 11 11 11 10 -

Turkey - - - 139 -

Sweden - - - - -

Korea - - - - -

Poland - - - - -

Portugal - - - - -

New Zealand - - - - -

Netherlands 12 12 11 - -

Norway 10 10 8 10 -

Luxembourg - - - - -

Japan 18 18 16 15 -

Iceland 6 13 5 8 14

Ireland 14 14 13 - -

Italy - - - - -

Hungary - - - - -

Greece 34 35 28 29 -

Great Britain 9 8 8 8 -

Finland 12 10 10 10 -

France 19 18 17 16 -

Spain - - - - -

Denmark 14 14 12 - -

Germany 17 16 14 14 -

Czech Republic 58 49 - - -

Switzerland 14 14 12 11 -

Canada - - - - -

Belgium 21 18 17 16 -

Australia - 12 - - -

Austria 21 19 15 16 -

At night, a human’s visual capabilities are impaired, and visibility is reduced. Road

crashes at night are disproportionately high in numbers and severity when compared

with the daytime. In the United States, while only 25 percent of the travel occurs

during nighttime, about 55 percent of the fatal crashes occur after sunset. Weighted

for km traveled, the nighttime fatality rate is three times the daytime figure. 5

 The

major factor contributing to this problem is darkness, because of its influence on a

driver’s behavior and ability. Thus, logically, road lighting is a potential

countermeasure.

Most of the countries reported significant safety benefits in term of crashes, injuries,

and fatalities when road lighting was installed. Some sample statistics follow:
38

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

• Finland reported 20 to 30 percent reductions.

• A Norwegian study that was cited revealed a 65 percent reduction in

nighttime fatalities, a 30 percent reduction in injuries, and a 15 percent

reduction in property damage.

• Dutch studies showed reductions of 18 to 23 percent.

In Finland, traffic fatalities were lowered from 1,000 in 1971 to 410 in 1998. Because

there are long periods of darkness during the year, it is likely that roadway lighting

can be credited for some portion of the decrease in fatalities.

Swiss representatives reported that crash rates are lower in appropriately lighted

tunnels than on other roadways.

Arguably the best data on this subject are available in the technical report, Road

Lighting as an Accident Countermeasure, CIE 93,1992. The report includes rigorous

analysis of 62 lighting and crash studies from 15 countries. Eighty-five percent of the

results show that lighting was beneficial, with about one-third of these studies having

statistical significance.

These data lead to the general conclusion that road lighting on traffic routes will

reduce the incidence of nighttime

accidents. Depending on the class of road

and the accident classification involved,

the statistically significant results show

reductions of between 13 and 75 percent.

Some of the specifics are:

 Percent

 Reduction

Motorways and semi-motorways 20

Other roads for motorized traffic 25

All-purpose roadways 30

The Swiss have launched an ambitious

program known as “Vision Zero” (figure

51). Its purpose is to improve roadways

such that there are “no fatalities in traffic

accidents.” The graphs in figure 52 show

the number of road accidents from 1945 to 1995 as compared with the number of

vehicles on the road during the same period.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Finnish representatives referred to an interesting experiment that was conducted in

southern Finland. The road lighting was reduced from 1.5 cd/m2 to no lighting at all.

The result was a 25 percent increase in the accident rate. When the lighting was

reduced from 1.5 cd/m2 to 0.75 cd/m2

, the accident rate increased 13 percent.

Figure 51. The Swiss “Vision Zero” program.
39

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

The Finnish Road Administration offers

incentives to road district personnel who

implement creative safety improvements. A

monetary reward is provided if accident

rates are reduced.

Based on the Dutch experience with

reduced lighting levels during the energy

crisis, light levels on motorways have been

reduced to the range used in the United

States, apparently without a noticeable

increase in accident rates.

Dutch designers installed an experimental,

dynamically lit roadway that can be

operated at three lighting levels, depending

on the amount of traffic and weather

conditions. The normal level is 1 cd/m2

, the

high level is 2 cd/m2, and the low level is

0.2 cd/m2. Experts were unable to detect

statistical differences in accidents between 1 cd/m2 and 2 cd/m2

; however, the sample

size was very small. Accident rates for the 0.2-cd/m2 system, when it is operated at

low traffic volumes, have been acceptable, and a second system that only operates at 1

cd/m2

 and 0.2 cd/m2 has been installed.

In Switzerland, the Zurich police provided the panel with an extensive investigative

report on accidents in the Gubrist Tunnel, where there have been 75 accidents over a

30-month period. The investigation included an analysis of the lighting in the tunnel

and videotape of a number of accidents. The panel found it highly interesting that the

police were analyzing the causes of crashes.

PANEL RECOMMENDATION

• The panel recommends the development of a uniform (State-to-State) accident

reporting system that includes more accurate descriptions of the lighting

conditions at crash scenes.

Figure 52. Road accidents compared with numbers of

vehicles.
40

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

In the area of future developments, the panel was very interested in investigating

cutting-edge lighting research as well as anticipated major advancements in the art

and science of roadway lighting.

NEW EUROPEAN STANDARDS

All the countries that the team visited, with the exception of Switzerland, are

members of the EU, and substantial effort is going into the harmonized CEN Lighting

Standards. When the harmonized CEN documents are adopted, they will replace

individual countries’ standards, which were generally based on the CIE. This is an

example of the impact of the EU now and in the future.

TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTERS

The panel visited two traffic control centers (TCC): one in Finland and one in

Switzerland (figures 53 and 54).

The TCCs are used to improve traffic flow, provide traffic information, and control and

manage traffic demand. The Finnish center can monitor the weather throughout the

entire country and, when needed, give information directly to motorists by

interrupting car radio programs. Motorists do not need to be tuned to any particular

frequency. The center can also remotely change posted speed limits.

Figures 53. & 54. Views of a TCC in Switzerland (left) and Finland (right).
41

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

DYNAMIC ROADWAY LIGHTING

In the Netherlands, the origins of dynamic

roadway lighting can be traced to the

Energy Crisis of the 1970s. During that

period, some luminaires were turned off to

save energy. While there was an increase in

accidents, it was not a large increase.

(Some areas of the United States noted

significant increases in accidents when the

same approach was used). Over the

following 15 years, there was movement by

the Netherlands to lower the lighting

levels from 2 cd/m2

 (as recommended by

CIE) to 1 cd/m2

, retaining the

recommended uniformity ratios.

Since 1995, the Netherlands has installed

and operated a dynamically lighted

roadway that can be adjusted to any of

three lighting levels, depending on the

amount of traffic, time of day, and weather

conditions. The low level is 0.2 cd/m2

(figure 55), the normal level is 1 cd/m2

(figure 56), and the high level is 2.0 cd/m2

(figure 57). The different light levels are

obtained through the use of electronically

controlled, dimmable HPS ballasts.

To set a baseline for the dynamic road

section, Dutch experts have collected and

analyzed accident data. Unfortunately, the

dynamic section was too short and the

statistical sample size was too small to

draw conclusions between the 1-cd/m2

 and

2-cd/m2 light levels. In an evaluation of an

extensive set of methods (inductive loop

detectors, instrumented vehicles, video

observations, questionnaires), it was

concluded that, under low traffic volumes

(less than 800 vehicles per hour) and

favorable weather conditions, the low level

(0.2 cd/m2

) can be applied. Accidents rates

for the low-level lighting have been acceptable. To continue gathering information on

dynamic road lighting, the Dutch have installed a second system, which only operates

at 1 cd/m2

 and 0.2 cd/m2.

In Finland, a consortium of three organizations (FORTUM, SITO, and VTT) is

experimenting with a dynamic road lighting system on a 3.5-km segment of Route 1

Figure 55. Low level of roadway lighting, the

Netherlands.

Figure 56. Normal level of roadway lighting.

Figure 57. High level of roadway lighting.
42

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

(Oinola to Saukkola), with about 9,000 ADT, on a two-lane road. The system uses a

continuous integration of traffic volume and weather conditions to determine the

speed limits and roadway lighting levels. A measuring device (meter) is used to

determine whether the pavement is wet, dry, or snow-covered. The control system

tries to keep the luminance of the roadway constant by varying the lumen output of

each luminaire. The meters also can determine which luminaires are not functioning

properly. Dimmers made by Philips Telemanagement control individual luminaires.

The schedule called for testing of the system to begin in autumn of 2000.

GUIDANCE SYSTEMS

In the mid-1990s, environmental studies concluded that a lighted roadway could be a

barrier to wildlife movement. In addition, a number of environmentalists suggested

that darkness was a natural and good thing. A number of environmentally sensitive

areas in the north of the Netherlands are referred to as “scenic areas.” In the scenic

areas, the current lighting approach is multifaceted and includes not installing

lighting, installing lighting that can be dimmed, and an active investigation into the

use of lighting as a guidance system.

Experts in the Netherlands are researching the acceptability of a number of different

types of guidance systems. Under investigation are light-emitting diode (LED)

pavement markers, LED post delineators, LED pavement-marker stripes, fiber-optic

“side sights” (fiber optics attached to a guardrail, with light emanating along the

entire length), and fiber optic “end lights” (in-pavement fiber optics with ends

extending up and out of the pavement surface at fixed intervals with light emanating

from the tips of the cables). These systems are used where additional guidance is

needed and are typically operated between 11:30 PM and 6 AM. Figure 58 illustrates

the types of systems.

To date, findings of the Dutch

investigations indicate the following:

1. In-road systems seem to give the best

guidance information to motorists.

2. Guardrail-mounted systems do not

always relate to the roadway.

3. In-road LEDs should match the lane

line stripe color.

4. Solar-powered LEDs typically take 14

hours to run down and appear to have

approximately a 5- to 5.5-year service life.

5. Guardrail-mounted equipment requires

costly repair when a car crashes into it.

6. In-pavement systems pose a challenge

during resurfacing operations.

The panel observed in-road, fiber-optic delineators in Switzerland, as well, which are

shown in figures 59a and b.

Figure 58. Dutch guidance systems under

investigation.
43

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

In addition to

the research

by the Dutch,

the French

have a study

under way

comparing

lighting,

retroreflectivity,

and active

luminous

devices. Also,

Helsinki

University is

working in

the area of

mesopic

vision (luminance levels that are typically used in roadway lighting) and use of LEDs

in lighting. There is an extensive amount of

research being conducted in this area.

PAVEMENT REFLECTION QUALITIES

Some of the newer surfaces that are not

included in the development of the original

R-tables include quiet and water-draining

pavements, as well as very thin, asphaltic

concretes and surface dressings.

Additionally, there is an increase in the use

of bright and colored road surfaces, as

shown in figure 60.

Because of the evolution of road surface

technology, the French are conducting

research in the area of photometric

properties of road surfaces. Figures 61 and 62 show applications of colored pavements.

There is a need for new pavement reflectance measuring equipment as well as data

for observation angles, other than 1 degree downward. Figure 63 illustrates a typical

view that a motorist sees inside a tunnel. Here, the driver will usually shorten his

gaze to closer objects both on and off the roadway, depending on his rate of speed.

Data are needed for the closer observation angles.

In Belgium, R-Tech is building a reflectometer to measure pavement reflectance at

varying alpha, beta, and gamma angles. In France, with use of a ray tracing

technique, the French are developing a virtual reflectometer (figure 64) to predict

current and future pavement reflectance for all angles.

Figures 59a & 59b. In-road, fiber-optic delineators.

Figure 60. Examples of colored pavement.
44

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

TUNNELS

Worldwide, the volume of vehicular traffic

is increasing. To keep traffic moving

through tunnels in the daytime, the

lighting community has increased the

amount of light installed so that the

“black hole” that used to be present at the

tunnel portal has been improved to a

“gray hole.” The intent is to make sure

drivers can see well enough into the

tunnel so they don’t slow down when

entering the tunnel. While this has been

accomplished, it has been expensive to

install and operate – offsetting sunlight is

not cheap! As a result, those responsible

for lighting tunnels are always looking for

ways to accomplish the necessary visual

task for less money.

In Switzerland, an example of partial

tunnel lighting for a 120-m-long tunnel

was cited. The partial-lighting approach

for short tunnels may provide the needed

visibility while saving energy. It utilizes a

known phenomenon: natural daytime

lighting typically penetrates the portals of

the tunnel about 40 m. Taking advantage

of that, artificial lighting is only installed

in the middle 40 m of the tunnel.

Installing only one-third as much lighting

saves a great deal of energy, which makes

it very appealing.

Johan Alferdinck of the research firm

TNO Human Factors, the Netherlands,

presented a paper examining the effects

of light sources on color contrast in tunnel

lighting. The purpose of the research is to

answer the question, “Based on luminance

contrast, does the color of the light source

add anything to this, so that I can reduce

the light level in the threshold?” While

further research needs to be conducted,

part of the conclusion reached is that the

use of colored light sources in tunnel

lighting is superior in all conditions.

Figure 65 shows colored targets with two

Figure 61. & 62 Application of colored pavement.

Figure 63. Typical motorist’s view of tunnel.

Ms. Corine Brusque of the French Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées.
45

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

different types of lighting. Note the

difficulty in target detection when veiling

luminance is added.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Control of light levels in tunnels has

traditionally been done using a technique

that looks at a 20-degree cone and is

referred to as “L20.” Another technique,

called Lseq., which uses a cone of view that

is more heavily weighted in the center, also

can be used to control the lighting. JeanMarie Dijon, along with R-Tech, in

Belgium, believe that both the L20 and

Lseq. controls should be placed on the

same tunnel and comparisons made to

determine which method performed the

best.

Dr. Peter Blaser, in Switzerland, stated

that there is a need for research on the

visual task in tunnels. He suggested that, for today’s traffic conditions, small targets

in an empty tunnel do not adequately describe the situation.

OVERALL RESEARCH IMPRESSIONS

The active research items discussed above

are only a portion of the large number of

projects under way. As was clear from

visiting five countries, the Europeans take

the task of advancing the art and science of

lighting seriously. While some of the

research is funded by private industry,

much of it is paid for by various

government agencies. For example, the

Finnish Road Administration spends 1.5

percent of its annual budget on research

and development.

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Investigate the application of the

concepts of dimming lighting systems, turning off lighting systems, and

alternative guidance systems as approaches to more dynamic management of

roadway lighting.

• Encourage innovative experimentation on active roadways and test tracks.

• Further evaluate European standards, practices, and guidance documents to

determine applicability in the United States.

Figure 64. Virtual reflectometer, France.

Figure 65. Effects of tunnel lighting color.
46

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Investigate the use of video-based data acquisition and Fast Fourier Transform

analysis for evaluation of the effectiveness (retroreflectivity degradation) of

traffic control devices such as sign lettering, pavement markings, and

delineators.

2. Evaluate driver information needs at night, considering the following: safe

stopping distance, navigational information needs, object in roadway

informational needs, visibility needs in periphery (roadside) vision,

probabilities of driver’s attention being given to the various areas, the change

in driver’s scan for information habits with and without lighting (including

just partial lighting) and also with variations in traffic volume, and the

adequacy of small targets describing the overall visibility of the roadway (or

providing the needed information).

3. Quantify visibility differences in tunnels between positive- and negativecontrast lighting systems, especially in low tunnel ceilings with heavy truck

traffic.

4. Compare lighting systems using Information Theory (IT) (Fast Fourier

Transforms) to discern differences between systems designed by the

illuminance method, luminance method, and the STV method. Make field

evaluations of pavement reflectance and make comparisons in the variation of

information based on variations in pavement reflectance.

5. Develop new bidirectional pavement reflectance distribution functions for all

pavement types. Investigate variation in reflectivity due to spectral content of

lamp. Evaluate Fast Fourier Transforms of pavement texture for correlation to

pavement reflectance.

6. Develop measuring techniques and standards for off-roadway glare sources.

Research should include the effectiveness of adding or increasing roadway

lighting levels to mitigate adverse effects of off-roadway lighting.

7. Investigate the adverse effects of glare on pedestrians and bicyclists sufficient

to allow designers to establish limits for such glare. Consider the benefits of

the pedestrian’s visibility versus the ability of the pedestrian to be seen.
47

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The trip described in this report was successful thanks to the contributions and

sacrifices of a large number of individuals. First, and foremost, the panel members

thank the engineers and other transportation officials from the five countries visited.

These individuals gladly gave their time and resources to make us feel comfortable

and to provide the panel with the latest technical information from their respective

organizations. The panel met too many individuals to list here, but they are listed in

appendix C. In addition to the people listed in the appendix, the panel members thank

the behind-the-scenes individuals who worked on the logistical aspects of the trip. In

many cases, the panel members may never have met these people, but we recognize

their valuable contribution to the success of this trip.

The panel members would never have been able to start and successfully complete

the trip without the assistance of the staff from American Trade Initiatives, Inc. (ATI).

ATI, under contract with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), handled the

pre-trip logistics, escorted the delegation throughout the trip, and provided the

support needed to prepare and publish this report. The panel members would like to

recognize the following staff of ATI:

• Joe Conn, for his guidance and assistance in organizing the trip.

• John O’Neill, for his guidance, counsel, and leadership as our escort during the

tour.

• Alexandra Doumani, for her assistance in preparing the report and making

the travel arrangements.

• Marie-Dominique Gorrigan, for advance work and translation in Paris.

This trip was made possible with support and funding from the FHWA Midwestern

Resource Center and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO). In particular, the panel members thank Donald Symmes and

Hana Maier, from the FHWA Office of International Programs, and Dave Hensing and

Kyung Ku Lim, of AASHTO, for sponsoring the trip and allowing panel members to

observe and report on practices in European countries. Additionally, the panel

members thank the staff of the National Coopoerative Highway Research Program

(NCHRP) for their assistance.

Finally, the panel members express appreciation to the many individuals who served

as interpreters throughout the trip. Although many of our hosts spoke excellent

English, having an interpreter who was familiar with the technical terms of the

lighting profession was of immense assistance to the panel.
48

appendix a

PANEL MEMBERS

Karl A. Burkett, P.E. (Co-Chair)

Texas DOT

125 East 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701

Tel: 512-416-3121

Fax: 512-416-3161

Email: kburkett@dot.state.tx.us

Dale Wilken (Co-Chair)

FHWA

10 S. Howard St., Suite 4000

Baltimore, MD 21201

Tel: 410-962-0093

Fax: 410-962-3655

Email: dale.wilken@fhwa.dot.gov

James A. Havard (Report Facilitator)

139 Georgetown Rd.

Hendersonville, NC 28739

Tel: 828-692-1324

Fax: 828-692-0849

Email: jjhavard@bellsouth.net

Balu Ananthanarayanan, P.E.

Wisconsin DOT

Bureau of Highway Operations (Room 501)

4802 Sheboygan Ave.

Madison, WI 53707

Tel: 608-266-0299

Fax: 608-261-6295

Email: balu.ananthanarayanan@dot.state.wi.us

John Arens

FHWA, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Tel: 202-493-3364

Fax: 202-493-3415

Email: john.arens@fhwa.dot.gov

Patrick Hasson

FHWA, Midwestern Resource Center

19900 Governors Dr., Suite 301

Olympia Fields, IL 60461

Tel: 708-283-3595

Fax: 708-283-3501

Email: patrick.hasson@fhwa.dot.gov
49

APPENDIX A

Paul J. Lutkevich, P.E.

Parsons Brinckerhoff

75 Arlington St.

Boston, MA 02116

Tel: 617-426-7330

Fax: 617-482-8487

Email: lutkevich@pbworld.com

Jeff Unick, P.E.

Pennsylvania DOT

Bureau of Design

PO Box 3060

Harrisburg, PA 17105-3060

Tel: 717-772-3077

Fax: 717-705-2378

Email: jlunick@hotmail.com

C. Paul Watson, P.E.

State Electrical Engineer

Alabama DOT

PO Box 3050

Montgomery, AL 36130-3050

Tel: 334-242-6160

Fax: 334-834-3352

Email: watsonp@dot.state.al.us

BIOGRAPHIC SKETCHES

Karl A. Burkett, P.E. (Panel Co-Chair, AASHTO), is currently the Senior Lighting

Design Engineer with the Texas Department of Transportation (TX DOT). Mr.

Burkett has been with TX DOT since 1980. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in

Texas and a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers as well as the

Texas Society of Professional Engineers. Mr. Burkett is Chairman of the AASHTO

Task Force for Roadway Lighting and a member of two panels of lighting experts for

the National Academy of Sciences Cooperative Highway Research Program research

projects. He is also a member of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North

America (IESNA), President of the IESNA Texas Capitol Section (Austin, TX),

member of IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee and several sub-committees, and

Project Director of several TX DOT research projects, including “Evaluation of

Roadway Lighting Systems Designed by Small Target Visibility (STV) Methods.” Mr.

Burkett received the IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee’s Roadway Lighting

Design Award in 1998. He holds a BSEE degree from the University of Texas at

Austin.

Dale E. Wilken (Panel Co-Chair, FHWA) is the Director of the FHWA’s Eastern

Resource Center located in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Wilken directs a staff of

technical and program specialists who are responsible for providing technical

assistance, training, and deployment of new technology relating to roadway and
50

APPENDIX A

structure planning, design, and construction to FHWA Division (State) offices and

State Departments of Transportation in 15 mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states. Mr.

Wilken and his staff also provide these services to metropolitan planning

organizations, local transportation agencies, and other customers in these States. In

addition, Mr. Wilken supervises the Division Administrators who head the 15 midAtlantic and Northeastern Division Offices. Mr. Wilken has previously served as

Regional Administrator in Chicago and Division Administrator in Salem, Oregon, as

well as Chief of the Environmental Review Branch, FHWA Headquarters, in

Washington, D.C. While serving in the Montana Division, his responsibilities included

review of highway and structural lighting plans and proposals. Mr. Wilken is a

graduate of Bradley University with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. He is

a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. (Mr. Wilken retired from the

FHWA in January 2001.)

Balu Ananthanarayanan, P.E., is the State Electrical Engineer for the Wisconsin

Department of Transportation in Madison, Wisconsin. He is currently responsible for

the development of Electrical Engineering Policy and Illumination standards for the

design, operation, and maintenance of all Wisconsin DOT electrical installations. Mr.

Ananthanarayanan has over 26 years of experience as a practicing Electrical

Engineer, and he is a member of several national transportation organizations. He is

the Wisconsin DOT’s representative to the AASHTO Task Force on Roadway Lighting

and also the Task Force’s secretary. Mr. Ananthanarayanan has been an active

participant on several NCHRP project panels as well as on TRB panels and is a past

Chair of the Roadway Lighting Committee of the IESNA. He is a graduate of Arizona

State University, with an Electrical Engineering degree, and is a licensed Professional

Engineer in Wisconsin and Arizona.

John Arens is the manager of the Photometric and Visibility Laboratory of the

FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. Mr. Arens

conducts and is responsible for photometric and colorimetric material evaluations

used for signing and marking of roadways. He is also responsible for lighting criteria

applicable to roads, tunnels, signs, and rest areas, as they pertain to federally

financed roadways. Mr. Arens previously worked for the Lighting Division of

Westinghouse Electric Corporation for 22 years as a test engineer, design engineer,

and marketing engineer and for FHWA for 25 years as a lighting engineer and in

lighting/visibility-related research. He has been a member of the IESNA since 1958,

and he has been active on the Roadway Lighting, the Testing Procedures, and the

Papers Committees. He is a past President of both the Capitol Section (Washington

D.C.) and the Cleveland Section. He is a member of the International Commission on

Illumination (CIE), Divisions 2 and 4, the Council for Optical and Radiation

Measurements (CORM), the Visibility Committee of the Transportation Research

Council, and the AASHTO Task Force responsible for rewriting An Informational

Guide for Roadway Lighting. Mr. Arens is a graduate of Cleveland State University

with a degree in Electrical Engineering. (Mr. Arens retired from the FHWA in 2000.)

Patrick Hasson is the Safety Team Leader in the FHWA Midwestern Resource

Center in Olympia Fields, Illinois. Mr. Hasson provides safety-related technical

assistance and advice to FHWA Division Offices, State DOTs, and other transport

organizations and officials in the 10 Midwestern States. He also manages and/or
51

APPENDIX A

provides technical support for a variety of regional, national, and international

programs and activities. He is currently the coordinator for the national Stop Red

Light Running Program. Mr. Hasson spent 2 years in the Road Transport Research

Program at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris,

France, where he was involved in a variety of international research projects focused

on safety, infrastructure, and transport operations. He is a member of the Institute for

Transportation Engineers (ITE) and participates in safety committees with the ITE

and the Transportation Research Board. Mr. Hasson holds a BS in Engineering from

the University of Maryland and an MS in Engineering from Cornell University.

Jim Havard (Report Facilitator) is one of the principals in LITES, a lighting and

information consulting business. He has been involved in all phases of the

illumination industry for more than 35 years. His work has included product

conception, design, manufacturing, marketing, and application engineering. Mr.

Havard is active on the ANSI C136 Committee, where he is the retiring Committee

Secretary, and on the IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee, where he is the current

Committee Secretary. Mr. Havard is also a member of the Sign Lighting, Tunnel and

Standard Practice Subcommittees, and he is the CIE Div. 4 Deputy Representative

and is a member of the Visibility Design for Roadway Lighting, and Tunnel Lighting

Technical Committees. Mr. Havard is the USNC-IEC, retiring Deputy Technical

Representative and Past-President of the IESNA, Street & Area Lighting Committee.

He was the Chairman of the Standard Practice Subcommittee that authored the

latest revision to RP-8 American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting

and was also a member of the Visibility Taskforce that researched visibility on U.S.

roadways.

Paul J. Lutkevich, P.E., is currently the Chair of the Illuminating Engineering

Society’s Tunnel Lighting Sub-Committee as well as the incoming Chair for the

Roadway Lighting Committee. He is also an active member of the Commission

Internationale De L’Eclairage (International Committee on Illumination). Mr.

Lutkevich is a Senior Supervising Engineer for Parsons Brinckerhoff in Boston,

Massachusetts. Over the past 18 years, Mr. Lutkevich has been involved in the design

of more than $200 million of lighting systems for roads and tunnels throughout North

America. This includes Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project, which consists of 161

lane miles of roadway, half of which is in tunnels. He has received awards for his

work, including an International Illuminating Design Award for the lighting

modernization of Boston’s Callahan Tunnel. That lighting system, the first of its kind,

is the world’s largest light-guide installation. He is a licensed Professional Engineer

in several States. Mr. Lutkevich is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts and

holds a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering Technology.

Jeff Unick, P.E., is a highway lighting designer for the Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Mr. Unick is Chief of the Highway

Lighting Section in the Bureau of Design. His section provides all of the design,

construction, and maintenance expertise for roadway lighting in the DOT. Typical

lighting projects include roadway interchanges, tunnels, bridges, roadside rest areas,

park and ride areas, and pedestrian ways. He is a member of the AASHTO Task Force

on Roadway Lighting and a member of the IESNA. Mr. Unick has a degree in
52

APPENDIX A

Electrical Engineering from Pennsylvania State University and is a licensed

Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania.

C. Paul Watson, P.E., is the State Electrical Engineer in the Design Bureau of the

Alabama DOT (ALDOT) in Montgomery, Alabama. Mr. Watson currently directs the

preparation of plans for roadway, bridge and tunnel lighting, traffic signals, and

Automated Traffic Management Systems (ATMS). His current projects include a $40

million ATMS for the Jefferson/Shelby County Metro area, lighting of a high-speed

fly-over ramp interchange on I-459, and several coordinated traffic signal system

projects. Prior to his current assignment, he was instrumental in development of a

lighting pole foundation and wiring system to meet the requirements of the AASHTO

Roadside Design Guide. He is a licensed Professional Engineer, and is a member of

the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the IESNA Roadway

Lighting Committee (RLC). He currently serves as chairman of the RLC Standard

Practice Sub-Committee and is a member of the AASHTO Joint Task Force on

Roadway Lighting. Mr. Watson is co-author of a chapter on Roadway Lighting in

McGraw-Hill’s Highway Engineering Handbook and of Section 3 of the FHWA

Publication FHWA-HI-97-026, Design Construction and Maintenance of Highway

Safety Features and Appurtenances (NHI Course No.38034). Mr. Watson holds both a

Bachelor and a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Auburn

University.
53

appendix b

AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

Questions that are numbered were sent to the Europeans.

Questions that are bulleted were of secondary importance.

1. Future Developments

1.1 What cutting-edge roadway and tunnel lighting research has recently been

or is about to be done?

1.2 We would appreciate a discussion on what you see as the next major

roadway and tunnel lighting advancements.

2. Practical Matters of Roadway Illumination Systems

(We would greatly appreciate the benefit of your experience on matters of design,

installation, maintenance, and repair of lighting systems.)

2.1 Design

2.1.1 What standards or lighting reference documents do you use to

determine design requirements, including bibliographic listings?

Would it be possible for us to receive a copy of these standards?

2.1.2 We would appreciate a discussion about the lighting design for

roundabouts and other specific geometric features.

2.1.3 Were optimization studies done to determine your practices regarding

mounting height and number/wattage of fixtures for conventional (<

20-m mounting height) and high-mast (>20-m mounting height)

lighting? Are copies of such studies available?

2.1.4 Do you use temporary work zone lighting at roadway construction

areas?

2.1.4.1 In these areas, what standards or requirements do you use

to determine the appropriate roadway lighting for the

motorist?

2.1.4.2 What are the requirements for the lighting in the work area

for the construction workers? May we have copies of these

standards?

2.1.5 We would appreciate a discussion on any light pollution concerns you

may have and actions taken to abate light pollution.

2.1.6 Please discuss mitigation of specific headlamp characteristics (i.e.,

sharp cut-off) in lighting designs, especially as applied to a visibilitybased design and to the visibility of nonilluminated, retroreflective

signs.

• Is an estimate made of the amount of design work required for a particular

project? How is this done?

• What resources are committed to lighting?
54

APPENDIX B

• Do the people doing the lighting design work have other duties, or do they only

work on lighting? What are the qualifications for a lighting designer?

• Does safe stopping distance play a role in the design of speed limitless autobahn

lighting designs?

• How do you deal with the differences in elevations of crossroads and ramps?

• What types of low elevation lighting, i.e., curb or rail level, are being used for

lighting on structures?

• In the United States, as a safety requirement, we require the poles adjacent to the

roadway to “break away” when impacted by an automobile. Do you have similar

mandated requirements, or policies, concerning the use of breakaway poles? Are

there any mandated requirements, or policies, concerning foundations for

breakaway poles?

• How does the wiring system break away? When testing breakaway devices for

poles, is the wiring system in place to determine its effect on the breakaway

process?

• How is the decision to install lighting on a particular roadway made?

• Do you use warrants for lighting?

• Discuss your warranting conditions for continuous freeway lighting. For complete

interchange lighting? For partial interchange lighting?

• Do you use lighting programs that are compatible with CADD? Do you use

Intergraph? What other CADD programs are used? Do they handle designs for

both luminance and illuminance? CADD application software appears to be

limited, especially for luminance design. Are your programs generated in-house or

provided by vendors? Who are the vendors?

• Discuss your wiring methods for high-mast and conventional lighting, i.e., circuit

parameters (amps, volts, and volt-drop), types of insulation used, locations of

fuses.

2.2 Verification

2.2.1 Do you have construction acceptance testing and inspection

programs?

2.2.2 How are the design criteria of an installation verified before the

customer (state, city, township, etc.) accepts it and pays the

contractor/consultant?

2.2.2.1 What measurement techniques are used to verify the design?

2.2.2.2 Do you verify calculation methods and determine if field

results match calculations (check the amount of error)?

2.2.2.3 Do you investigate field modifications and how such

modifications affect the design?
55

APPENDIX B

2.2.2.4 What inspection effort is required? We would appreciate a

discussion on your preferences.

• What do you see as the major variables affecting field measurement:

- For the Illuminance Design Method?

- For the Luminance Design Method?

• How do you account for different pavement types (concrete, asphalt, aggregate,

artificial brighteners), weather conditions (i.e., dampness or dryness of pavement),

and wear of pavement, in the luminance readings?

• Bidding

• If you use competitive bidding, how do you account for the differences in

photometrics between manufacturers?

• Do you place restrictions on the luminaires as far as efficiency and utilization?

• What are your purchasing processes and procedures?

• Do you buy only the low-bid items?

• Do you set up any long-term contracts with a single vendor for standardization

purposes? If so, what is the duration of contract/s?

Operational Issues

• Do you use noncycling HPS lamps? Why?

• What techniques are used to identify and prevent or repair rust and corrosion of

lighting pole bases and connections?

• Do you contract out your maintenance? Could we have details? Does it include a

monitoring activity?

• Do you have a computerized inventory control?

• How do you keep track of the infrastructure that is out on the street? Manually?

Computer?

• What are your emergency response times for weather-related accidents and also

for accidents caused by humans?

• Discuss your lighting maintenance policy/procedures for high-speed freeways.

2.3 Litigation

 2.3.1 How do you protect against litigation if the lighting does not meet

standards?

3. Visibility Design Techniques

(The ANSI/IESNA publication Recommended Practice for Roadway Lighting has just

been revised to include the use of a visibility metric and STV, small target visibility.
56

APPENDIX B

Naturally, we are very interested in any experiences you have had using visibility

design techniques in your country.)

3.1 Have you conducted studies comparing the results of a visibility-based

design to illuminance or luminance-based designs?

3.2 What is the current status of installing roadway lighting systems using a

nonuniform luminance pattern based on STV (small target visibility), or

close to STV, design principles in your country?

3.3 What percentage of designs used visibility as a basis?

3.4 What standards or lighting reference documents do you use to determine

your visibility design requirements, including bibliographic listings?

3.5 Are accident statistics available and do the statistics show an improvement

in accident rate or an increase in driver comfort?

3.6 Are any cost figures available comparing these visibility-based designs to

more conventional (luminance-based) designs?

3.7 Do you have feedback from drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, on the visual

acceptability (or nonacceptability) of such systems?

3.8 Because it is necessary for computers to be used in calculating visibility

levels (VL), discuss the program parameters, such as the equation, size and

shape, and reflectance of the target, the contrast of the target, location of

calculation points, the effect of vehicle headlights, etc.

3.9 Do you find differences in the resulting lighting systems when different

types of targets are used? For example: Would a three-dimensional shape

(such as a soccer ball shaped target) yield a different lighting system than

one designed around a two-dimensional flat target of similar size and

reflectance qualities?

3.10 We would appreciate a discussion on the visibility measurement techniques

used to verify design.

3.11 We would appreciate a discussion on the adequacy of lower luminance levels

to be used with STV design methods.

3.11.1 Do you consider headlight contribution in a visibility-based design

and how is this affected by different headlamp designs?

3.12 We would appreciate a discussion on the adequacy of STV designed lighting

systems in varying (particularly wet or snow) weather conditions.

3.13 We would appreciate a discussion on the various authorities’ specifications,

inspection, and testing requirements for luminaires used with visibilitybased design methods.

3.13.1 How repeatable do you find the luminaires from a photometric

viewpoint? For example, do luminaires installed in different years

give the same measurements on the street?
57

APPENDIX B

3.14 Is there a difference in driver eye heights used in European STV designs?

4. Luminance Design Techniques

4.1 How do you account for glare?

• Do you find that luminance designs fit into interchange areas that have varying

widths and curved roadways and slower speed crossroads?

• Do you apply luminance to bridge lighting or partial interchange lighting where

you may only have a few lights?

• We notice that a design based on luminance tends to push the luminaire out over

the roadway, while maintenance desires the luminaire over the roadway’s

shoulder. Is this an issue and how has this issue been addressed?

• What type of luminaires do you find most useful and why?

• What standard do you use to determine the proper light level and what Candela/

m2

 values do you use? What values for Glare ratio?

5. Illumination of Tunnels, High-Mast, Signs, Rest Areas, etc.

5.1 Tunnels

5.1.1 We would appreciate a discussion on the various methods of lighting

tunnels used in your jurisdiction (pro-beam, counter-beam,

symmetrical, light guides, etc.)

5.1.2 What is your experience with the use of sunscreens before the tunnel

portal?

5.1.3 What standards or lighting reference documents do you use to

determine your design requirements?

5.1.3.1 What design methods are used to determine tunnel

lighting levels? (e.g., fixed values, L20, Lseq., snow,

atmospheric luminance, exterior contribution in the

threshold area)?

5.1.4 Do you account for glare in tunnel lighting designs?

5.1.5 How do you determine what is a tunnel and what is an underpass?

5.1.5.1 How do you light underpasses?

5.1.5.2 When are underpasses or tunnels not lighted?

5.1.6 Please discuss your lighting design techniques for very long tunnels,

including fixture mechanical characteristics, wiring methods,

controls, hypnotic effects, and backup power requirements.

5.1.7 What has been your experience in the use of induction fluorescent for

tunnels, walkways, and bikeways? In particular, what has been the

maintenance personnel’s experience?
58

APPENDIX B

• Are the road design speeds maintained throughout the tunnel or are they

reduced?

• What design programs do you have to address tunnel lighting?

• How are your tunnels maintained (i.e., washing, relamping, etc.)?

• Are fire/smoke issues considered in the tunnel equipment? Are materials such as

PVC allowed?

• What materials are used in tunnel construction? Are walls and ceilings tile,

concrete, shotcrete, other?

• Do you consider fluorescent lighting?

• Are most tunnels luminaires overhead or wall mounted?

• Are tunnel exits provided with increased lighting levels?

5.2 High-Mast (Mounting Heights > 20 m) Lighting

5.2.1 What is the experience of using high-mast lighting of roadways and

interchanges compared with usual pole heights of 10- to15-m range?

5.2.2 We would appreciate a discussion on your experiences with mounting

heights, number and wattage of fixtures, photometric patterns, and

types of lamps for high-mast lighting.

5.2.2.1 We would appreciate a discussion about the design

techniques you use for high-mast lighting (e.g., visibilitybased design? uniformity level on high ramps in

interchanges? how effectively are grade changes

considered?).

5.3 Signs

5.3.1 We would appreciate a discussion on the various sign lighting

methods used in your jurisdiction (e.g., what light levels (illuminance

or illuminance) and uniformities, types of luminaires, light sources,

and locations are used?)

5.3.2 Due to cost and energy concerns, many signs now depend on

retroreflective materials and illumination from vehicle headlamps.

Given the sharp cutoff of the typical European low-beam pattern, do

you experience any problems with proper and timely sign detection,

recognition, and legibility?

5.3.2.1 What are your plans relative to making sure all signs will

be detected and read and understood in sufficient time for

drivers to take proper action?

• Do you accept lower levels for sign lighting in areas where solar power is used?
59

APPENDIX B

5.4 Decorative Lighting

5.4.1 What types of newer residential and urban street lighting

treatments are being used?

5.4.2 What are your decorative illumination design criteria, (e.g., glare,

illuminance, luminance, semi-cylindrical?)

6. Pavement Reflection Factors

6.1 We would appreciate a discussion about the various reflectance factors used

in luminance and visibility-based designs.

6.2 What is your experience with the effects of R-factors changing due to

pavement age, aggregates, rutting, seal coat types, super-elevation, and

texturing?

6.3 Is the reflectance of future roadway treatments considered or controlled

(e.g., are any special pavement toppings or cover coats or other techniques

being used to control or improve pavement reflectivity?)

6.3.1 What effect do these have on sky glow?

6.4 We would appreciate a discussion about variations in off-roadway

reflectances under varying weather conditions and how that would impact

luminance level requirements.

• Do you consider worst-case condition for dry pavement?

• Do the R-tables adequately describe the roadway’s reflectance characteristics?

7. Experience with Counter-Beam vs. Pro-Beam Technology

7.1 We would appreciate a discussion on accident history for pro-beam, counterbeam, and asymmetric systems.

7.2 Do you consider using pro-beam or counter-beam on divided highways or

tunnels and are there object identification advantages of one vs. the other?

7.3 We would appreciate a discussion on transition adaptation from pro-beam to

counter-beam systems and from HPS/LPS to metal halide systems.

7.4 We would like to discuss with you the relative position and speed detection

of drivers in negative contrast situations (counter-beam).
60

appendix c

KEY CONTACTS IN HOST COUNTRIES

BELGIUM

R-Tech

Francis Shcreder

Director

Tel: 32 4 224 71 40

Email: gh@rtech.be

Marc Gillet

Director of Lighting Applications

Department

Tel: 32 4 224 71 48

Email: marc.gillet@rtech.be

Ing. Marcel Justin

Lighting Applications Manager

Tel: 32 4 224 71 48

Email: marcel.justin@rtech.be

Jean-Marie Dijon

Tel: 32 4 233 77 47

Email: jm.dijon@swing.be

Ing. Gérard Herman

Project Manager

Tel: 32 4 224 71 40

Email: gh@rtech.be

Schréder

Ir J.-P. Vanhecke

Tel: 32 3 890 66 66

Email: jp.vanhecke@schreder-us.be

Ministry of the Flemish Community

Ir. Jozef Van Ginderachter

Tel: 02 553 72 92

Email:

jozefcp.vanginderachter@lin.vlaanderen.be

Ir. Philippe Boogaerts

Tel: 02 553 72 44

Email:

philippelt.boogaerts@lin.vlaanderen.be

FINLAND

Finnish National Road

Administration (Finnra)

Jukka Isotalo

Director

Tel: 358 0 204 44 2006

Email: jukka.isotalo@tieh.fi

Kari Lehtonen

Research and Design Engineer

Traffic and Road Engineering

Tel: 358 0 204 44 2317

Email: kari.lehtonen@tieh.fi

Arto Tevajärvi

Project Manager

International Affairs

Tel: 358 0 204 44 2032

Email: arto.tevajarvi@tieh.fi

Tuuli Ryhanen

Traffic Management Centre

Tel: 358 0 204 44 8702

SITO Group

Pentti Hautala

Tel: 358 9 476 111

Email: pentti.hautala@sito.fi

Lansitek Contracting

Jukka Salmela

Managing Director

Tel: 358 10 45 57400

Email: jukka.salmela@lansivoima.fi

Helsinki Energy (SEU)

Teemu Rinne
61

APPENDIX C

FRANCE

CERTU (Center for Studies on Urban

Planning, Transport, Utilities, and

Public Construction)

Marc Ellenberg

Deputy Director for Scientific and

Technical Coordination

Tel: 33 04 72 74 58 03

Email: ellenber@certu.fr

Robert Charvin

Tel: 33 04 72 74 58 60

Email: rcharvin@certu.fr

Isabelle Vallance

Tel: 33 04 72 74 59 38

Email: Vallance@certu.fr

CETU (Ministry of Equipment,

Transport, and Planning)

Jean-Claude Martin

Tel: 04 72 14 34 16

Email: jeanclaude.martin@cetu.equipement.gouv.fr

Didier Lacroix

Research Manager

Tel: 33 4 72 14 33 85

Email:

didier.lacroix@cetu.equipement.gouv.fr

Philips

Philippe Gandon-Léger

International Product Manager, Outdoor

Lighting

Tel: 33 04 78 55 81 99

Email: philippe.gandon-leger@philips.com

Ir. Wout van Bommel

Lighting Design and Application Centre

Manager LiDAC Central

Tel: 31 40 27 56314

Fax: 31 40 27 56406

Email:

Wout.vanBommel@ehv.lighting.philips.com

Laurent de Ridder

Outdoor Lighting Application Centre

Manager

Tel: 33 0 4 72 25 19 91

Ing. G.H.M. Giesbers

Lighting, Design and Application Centre

Tel: 33 0 4 78 55 82 71

Email: gerard.giesbers@philips.com

AFE

Bernard Duval

Tel: 01 45 05 72 80

Email: bduval@feder-eclairage.fr

French National Committee of CIE

Jacques Lecocq

Tel: 33 32 21 48 00

Email: jacques.lecocq@tlgfr.com

Jean Bastie

Email: bastie@cnam.fr

Public Lighting Commission

Christian Remande

Fax: 33 1 48 16 17 89

Paris Laboratory

Françoise Jousse

Email: Francois.Jousse@mairie-paris.fr

Michelle Isaac-Camara

Fax: 33 1 45 80 81 72

Laboratoire Central des Ponts et

Chaussées (LCPC)

Corine Brusque

Tel: 33 1 40 43 50 00

Email: Corine.Brusque@lcpc.fr

Vincent Ledoux

Email: Vincent.Ledoux@lcpc.fr
62

APPENDIX C

Sophie Mosser

Email: Sophie.Mosser@lcpc.fr

Giselle Paulmier

Email: Giselle.Paulmier@lcpc.fr

Eric Dumont

Email: Eric.Dumont@lcpc.fr

Roland Brémond

Email: Roland.Bremond@lcpc.fr

Bernard Jacob

Email: Bernard.Jacob@lcpc.fr

Pierre-Yves Texier

Email: Pierre-Yves.Texier@lcpc.fr

Bernard Mamontoff

Email: Bernard.Mamontoff@lcpc.fr

Laboratoire Régional des Ponts et

Chaussées de Lermont-Ferrand

Michèle Colomb

Email:

Michele.Colomb@cetelyon.equipement.gouv.fr

Laboratoire Régional des Ponts et

Chaussées de Rouen

Alexis Bacelar

Email:

Alexis.Bacelar@equipement.gouv.fr

Jacques Cariou

Email:

Jacques.Cariou@equipement.gouv.fr

SWITZERLAND

Consultants

Peter Blaser

Tel: 41 31 352 2637

Email: kasi.blaser@bluewin.ch

Hans Meier

Tel: 41 1 736 5429

Email: hans.meier@bd.zh.ch

Lichttechnische Beratung (LIBE)

Werner Riemenschneider

Tel: 056 28 14 35

Elektrizitätswerke des Kantons

Zürich (EKZ)

Manfred Jäger

Tel: 01 207 52 60

Email: mjaeger@ekz.ch

Beleuchtungs-Technik AG (BETAG)

Philipp Riemenschneider

Tel: 01 730 77 11

Ingenieur-Unternehmung AG Bern

(IUB)

Hans-Rudolf Scheidegger

Tel: 41 0 31 357 11 11

Email: iub.bern@bluewin.ch

Electrowatt-Ekono

Emil Keller

Tel: 411 355 55 55

Email: emil.keller@ewe.ch

Kantonspolizei Zürich

Martin E. Weissert

Tel: 01 247 37 33
63

APPENDIX C

Bfu, bpa, upi

Paul Reichardt

Tel: 031 390 22 22

Email: p.reichardt@bfu.ch

Elektrizitätswerk der Stadt Zürich

(EWZ)

Jürg Streich

Tel: 01 319 49 01

Email: jurg.streich@ewz.stzh.ch

Peter Schriber

Tel: 01 319 49 02

Email: peter.schriber@ewz.stzh.ch

Martin Bruppacher

Tel: 01 319 49 03

Email: martin.bruppacher@ewz.stzh.ch

THE NETHERLANDS

Ministry of Transport, Public Works,

and Water Management

Ir J.W. Huijben

Tel: 030 285 79 82

Email: j.w.huijben@bwd.rws.minvenw.nl

Ton van den Brink

Tel: 31 10 282 59 15

Email: t.d.j.vdbrink@avv.rws.minvenw.nl

Arjen Blacquiere

Tel: 030 285 73 65

Email:

a.r.blacquiere@bwd.rws.minvenw.nl

Jitka Usselstijn

Tel: 31 10 282 57 18

Email: j.usselstijn@avv.rws.minvenw.nl

TNO Human Factors Research

Institute

Ing. W. Hoekstra

Simulator Specialist

Tel: 03463 5 64 49

Email: wytze@izf.tno.nl

Jeroen H. Hogema

Traffic Behaviour

Tel: 31 346 35 64 40

Email: Hogema@tm.tno.nl

Ing. Johan W.A.M. Alferdinck

Displays, Department of Perception

Tel: 31 346 35 63 11

Email: alferdinck@tm.tno.nl

Noord-Holland

Paul J. Rutte

Tel: 023 514 51 51
64

appendix d

KEY PAPERS

Throughout the tour, the scanning team received numerous documents from all of the

hosting agencies. The documents referred to in this report are listed here.

1. Color contrast in tunnels (Kleurcontrast in tunnels) (TNO-report TM-00-C009, in

Dutch) by J. W. A. M. Alferdinck, Department of Perception (Displays), TNO

Human Factors, Soesterberg, the Netherlands.

2. Visibility in road lighting; correlation of subjective assessments with calculated

values by J. Lecocq, Thorn Europhane, Les Andelys, France.

3. Quality criteria for road lighting: luminance and uniformity levels? Or visibility?

by Jean-Marie Dijon and Laurent Maldague of R-Tech S.A. Belgium.

4. Tunnel of Wevelgem; comparison and tests of symmetrical, counter-beam and probeam systems by Jean-Marie Dijon and P. Winkin of R-Tech S.A. Belgium.

5. Laboratory experimental study of the influence of environmental complexity on the

detection of various targets by G. Paulmier, C. Brusque, V. Carta, and V. Nguyen,

LCPC; Paris, France.

6. Evaluation of the photometric characteristics of porous asphalts by Corinne

Brusque, Jean Peybernard, LCPC; Paris, France.

7. Study of road surface photometric properties by numerical simulations by T.

Rondeau, C. Brusque, LCPC, Paris, France; and N. Noe and B. Peroche of Ecole des

Mines de St-Etienne Centre Simade, St-Etienne, France.

8. Black window method of short tunnel lighting design by J. W. Huijben and F. de

Roo, Engineering Department, Rijkwaterstaat, the Netherlands.

9. Dynamic public lighting, Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water

Management; P.O. Box 1031; 3000 BA Rotterdam; the Netherlands.
65

appendix e

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES IN 2000

CONFERENCES AND SYMPOSIUMS

Name Time Presenter(s)

TRB Visibility Symposium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15-16 . . . . . Havard/ Arens

Kansas State Roadway Design Course . . . . . May . . . . . . . . . . Hasson

AASHTO Annual Meeting on Traffic Eng. . . . June . . . . . . . . . . Balu

IMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July . . . . . . . . . . Balu

ITE Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 6-9 . . . . . Burkett

IESNA – RLC Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 29 . . . . . . . . Havard

Street & Area Lighting Conference . . . . . . . . September . . . . . Havard

Local Wisconsin IESNA Chapter . . . . . . . . . . September . . . . . Balu

AASHTO Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October . . . . . . . Hasson/Burkett

APWA Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hasson

TRB Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 2001 . . . Burkett

ARTICLES AND PAPERS

Public Roads

IESNA LD&A Magazine

AASHTO Journal

ITE Journal

Public Works Magazine

TEST BEDS FOR POSSIBLE DEMONSTRATIONS

Alabama DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

Texas DOT

Wisconsin DOT

Smart Road - Virginia
66

ENDNOTES

1 Hockey, E. and McGee, H. Minimum Traffic Sign Retro-reflectivity Guidelines: The

United States Experience, presented at 3rd African Road Safety Congress, Pretoria,

South Africa, April 1997.

2

 ANSI/ IESNA RP-8-00 “American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting.”

3 Dijon, Jean-Marie. Quality Criteria for Road Lighting: Luminance and Uniformity

Levels? Or Visibility?” IR or R-Tech S.A., Belgium.

4 Dijon, Jean-Marie. Quality Criteria for Road Lighting: Luminance and Uniformity

Levels? Or Visibility? IR or R-Tech S.A., Belgium.

5

 Hockey, E. and McGee, H. Minimum Traffic Sign Retro-reflectivity Guidelines: The

United States Experience, presented at 3rd African Road Safety Congress, Pretoria,

South Africa, April 1997.
	
	
	




	
 

!

 	
	!"#$%


& ##'())'%)()

*& ##'())'%)#)

	
	
	
+,-.
-

,,,-	
	
	
-,-.
-