ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Roadway Lighting
 ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Roadway Lighting

Publication of this Recommended Practice

has been approved by the IES.
Suggestions for revisions should
be directed to the IES.
ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Copyright 2014 by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

Approved by the IES Board of Directors, June 26, 2014, as a Transaction of the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in any electronic retrieval system
or otherwise, without prior written permission of the IES.

Published by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 120 Wall Street, New York, New York 10005.

IES Standards and Guides are developed through committee consensus and produced by the IES Office in
New York. Careful attention is given to style and accuracy. If any errors are noted in this document, please for-
ward them to Rita Harrold, Director of Technology, at the above address for verification and correction. The IES
welcomes and urges feedback and comments.

Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN # 978-0-87995-299-0

DISCLAIMER

IES publications are developed through the consensus standards development process approved
by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together volunteers represent-
ing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus on lighting recommendations. While the
IES administers the process and establishes policies and procedures to promote fairness in the
development of consensus, it makes no guaranty or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness
of any information published herein.

The IES disclaims liability for any injury to persons or property or other damages of any nature
whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential or compensatory, directly or indirectly result-
ing from the publication, use of, or reliance on this document.

In issuing and making this document available, the IES is not undertaking to render professional
or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity. Nor is the IES undertaking to perform
any duty owed by any person or entity to someone else. Anyone using this document should
rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a competent
professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances.

The IES has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents
of this document. Nor does the IES list, certify, test or inspect products, designs, or installations
for compliance with this document. Any certification or statement of compliance with the require-
ments of this document shall not be attributable to the IES and is solely the responsibility of the
certifier or maker of the statement.
 ANSI/IES RP-8-14

IES Roadway Lighting Committee Members

IES Standard Practice Subcommittee

Rick Kauffman – Sub Chair

Ed Kramer – Vice Chair
Leora Radetsky – Secretary

M. Aitkenhead T. Fenimore C. Kerschner* E. Ng M. Smolyansky*

C. Andersen M. Field* C. Kwong* H. Odle M. Stevens
J. Armstrong J. Frazer* M. Lambert* D. Okon F. Stohl*
M. Baginski* B. Fugerer* R. Larivee* M. Patel G. Thiesse*
S. Bankston* J. Garcia* C. Leone* D. Paulin* N. Trebilcock*
J. Bastianpillai* R. Gibbons I. Lewin M. Pearse J. Tuenge*
J. Bloomfield R. Gupta G. Lister* E. Phillips P. Vandemotter*
R. Bradford S. Harder* P. Lutkevich* P. Phillips A. Weaver*
M. Bucci J. Hart D. Maikowski* C-A. Poirier* J. Weaver*
J. Buraczynski R. Harvey M. Maltezos P. Reed S. Wentworth
K. Burkett G. Hauser M. Mayer* M. Riebling* M. Wilbur*
B. Chau* J. Havard** W. McDonald* J. Robinson R. Wyton*
G. Chelvanayagam* W. Hughes S. McKnight N. Rockey* R. Yeager
A. Cheng M. Janoff J. Mickel P. Sabau M. Zukerman*
V. Cimino J. Jiao K. Min* M. Santiago*
R. Clear G. Jobe* P. Mitchell N. Schiewe *Advisory
S. Coyle* R. Jones K. Molloy* M. Seppelt* ** Honorary
J. Degnan J. Josefowicz* E. Morel J. Simmers*
G. Engstrom* H. Kashani* J. Mugivan* W. Smelser
G. Eslinger D. Keith R. Nall L. Smith
ANSI/IES RP-8-14

IES Roadway Lighting Committee Members

A. Silbiger – Chair
W. Smelser – Vice Chair
J. Bloomfield – Secretary

M. Aitkenhead J. Degnan* D. Keith D. McLean* L. Smith

B.Ananthanarayanan C. Dibley* C. Kerschner* J. Meyers** M. Smolyansky
C. Andersen S. Dillon* E. Kramer J. Mickel** J. Snowden*
J. Armstrong N. Dittmann C. Kwong P. Mitchell R. Stemprok
M. Baginski* M. Dudas S. Lansford K. Molloy M. Stevens*
J. Bastianpillai A. Duma* R. Larivee* D. Monahan F. Stohl
P. Batchelor* G. Engstrom* G. Lauziere* E. Morel L. Tebow*
D. Baum K. Fitzmaurice* L. Leetzow J. O'Connor* M. Tedesco
R. Bradford* J. Frazer O. Letamendi H. Odle** G. Thiesse*
J. Brown* M. Gabriel* R. LeVere** D. Okon** U. Thurairajah*
M. Bucci R. Gibbons I. Lewin D. Paulin J. Weaver
D. Bueno* R. Gupta G. Lister M. Pearse* S. Wegner
K. Burkett J. Hart L. Livingston* C. Pekar* S. Wentworth
C. Chadwick R. Harvey T. Lohman* C. Poirier* E. Yao*
G. Chelvanayagam J. Havard** X. Lou* L. Radetsky R. Yeager
J. Cheung* W. Hughes** P. Lutkevich* R. Rainer
V. Cimino D. Husby** L. Lutley* M. Riebling*
R. Clear M. Janoff** E. MacGill* O. Rivera* *Advisory
S. Coyle J. Jewell** D. Maikowski* J. Robinson* ** Honorary
C. Craig** J. Jiao M. Maltezos P. Sabau
D. Crawford** R. Jones M. Mayer M. Seppelt*
M. Cunningham H. Kashani* J. McCormick** B. Shelby**
J. DaCosta* R. Kauffman S. McKnight** J. Simmers*

This standard practice is dedicated to the memory of Richard E. Stark

whose contributions to the committee and society are greatly appreciated.

Cover: Ringling Bridge, Sarasota, FL

Image by Edward J. Kramer, EJKramer Consulting, LLC.
 ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose of this Standard Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Purpose of Roadway and Street Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Roadway Lighting and Street Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Related Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.0 Classifications and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Roadway, Pedestrian Walkway, and Bikeway Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Pedestrian Conflict Area Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Pavement Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Luminaire Classification System (LCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.0 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1 Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Appearance and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Visual Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4 Integration with Non-Lighting Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5 Vertical Surface Illumination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6 Glare and Sky-Glow Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.7 Impact of Headlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.8 Impact of Trees on Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.9 Spectral Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.0 Lighting Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1 Roadway Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 Street Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1 Pedestrian Areas and Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.0 Other Areas and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.1 Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.1 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.2 Vehicular Traffic Volumes and Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.3 Recommended Illuminance for Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2 High Mast Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.3 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2.4 Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2.5 Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2.6 Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3 Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4 Adaptive Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.5 Transition Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ANSI/IES RP-8-14

5.6. Grade Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.7 Isolated intersections and interchanges (Partial Lighting) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.7.1 Determination of the Lighting Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.7.2 Lighting Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.7.3 Beacon Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.7.4 Intersections of High Speed, High Traffic Density, Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.8 Curves and Steep Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.8.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.8.2 Luminaire/Pole Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.8.3 Luminaire Orientation – Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.8.4 Luminaire Orientation – Steep Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9 Underpasses and Overpasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.1 Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.2 Underpasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.2.2 Nighttime Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.2.3 Daytime Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.2.4 Special Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.2.5 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.9.3 Overpasses and Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.10 Railroad Grade Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.10.1 Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.10.2 Determination of Railroad Grade Crossing Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.10.3 Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.10.4 Light Sources and Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.10.5 Pole / Luminaire Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.11 Trees adjacent to Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.11.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.11.2 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.11.3 Design Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.12 Roundabouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.12.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.12.2 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.13 Toll Plazas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.13.2 Types of Toll Plazas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.13.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.13.3.1 Luminaire Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.13.3.2 Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Annex A Calculation and Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Annex B Glare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Annex C Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Annex D References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Annex E Classification of Luminaire Light Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 ANSI/IES RP-8-14

FOREWORD 1.0 INTRODUCTION

(This Foreword is not part of the American National 1.1 Purpose of this Standard Practice
Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, ANSI/IES
RP-8-2014, but is included for informational pur- The primary purpose of this Standard Practice is
poses only.) to serve as the basis for design of fixed lighting for
roadways, streets, adjacent bikeways, and pedes-
During the 85-year existence of the IES Committee trian ways. The Standard Practice deals entirely
on Roadway Lighting, the night use of public ways with lighting design and does not give advice on
has grown greatly. Traffic has changed in speed construction. Its primary purpose is to provide rec-
and density. Studies have established a substantial ommended practices for designing new continuous
relationship between good fixed lighting and traffic lighting systems for roadways and streets. It is not
safety. In addition, understanding of the principles intended to be applied to existing lighting systems
of good lighting has advanced. The following earlier until such systems are completely redesigned. It has
publications of the committee reflect progress of the been prepared to advance the art, science, and prac-
roadway lighting technique through the years. tice of roadway and street lighting in North America.
Roadway and street lighting includes pedestrian and
• Principles of Streetlighting 1928
bikeway lighting when it is associated with the public
• Code of Streetlighting 1930 right-of-way.
• Code of Streetlighting 1935
In those circumstances where there is any doubt as
• Code of Streetlighting 1937 to whether the provision of new or updated roadway
lighting would provide a benefit at a particular location,
• Recommended Practice of Streetlighting 1940
a decision should be made based on a study of local
• Recommended Practice of conditions. Once a decision has been made to provide
Street and Highway Lighting 1945 lighting, this publication provides the basis for design-
ing an appropriate system. The AASHTO Lighting
• American Standard Practice for
Design Guide provides guidance for warranting.
Street and Highway Lighting 1947
• American Standard Practice for 1.2 Purpose of Roadway and Street Lighting
Street and Highway Lighting 1953
The principal purpose of roadway and street lighting
• American Standard Practice for
is to allow accurate and comfortable visibility at night
Roadway Lighting 1963
of possible hazards in sufficient time to allow appro-
• American Standard Practice for priate action. For a pedestrian, this can mean better
Roadway Lighting 1972 visibility of the surrounds and the sidewalk, while for
the driver of a motor vehicle, it will mean time to stop
• American Standard Practice for
or to maneuver around an obstacle. Good lighting
Roadway Lighting 1977
has been shown to significantly reduce the night pro-
• American Standard Practice for portion of accidents; especially on urban freeways
Roadway Lighting 1983 and on major streets. For most streets and side-
walks, good lighting has been reported to increase
• American Standard Practice for
the feeling of personal security of pedestrians.
Roadway Lighting (reaffirmed) 1993
• American Standard Practice for The benefits of lighting should be considered against
Roadway Lighting (reaffirmed 2005) 2000 the drawbacks; engineering, capital and mainte-
nance costs, energy use, appearance--particularly
The present Practice has evolved from these earlier of overhead wires, but sometimes also of poles--the
documents, and considers the latest research, interna- added fixed object hazard of poles, plus spill light on
tional standards, experience, and equipment technology. adjacent residential or commercial (i.e., outdoor din-
ing) property and into the sky (affecting astronomi-
An American National Standard represents the cal observations). Thus, lighting is ‘good’ when it is
consensus of all groups having an essential interest economical in equipment, energy and maintenance
in the provisions of the Standard Practice. The IES, costs, and meets a proven or reasonably predict-
as a sponsor, must have the viewpoints of groups able need, with a minimum of adverse effect. This
interested in roadway lighting represented on the Practice has been developed to provide guidance
Roadway Lighting Committee. to experienced engineers in designing such lighting.

1
ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Fig. 1a - Typical roadway lighting installations. (Images courtesy of Paul Lutkevich, Parsons Brinckerhoff)

Fig. 1b - Typical street lighting installations. (Images courtesy of Paul Lutkevich, Parsons Brinckerhoff.)

1.3 Roadway Lighting and Street Lighting are not covered in this Recommended Practice.
Other documents are listed for reference purposes.
Two different types of roadway lighting systems are These documents include:
defined in this recommended practice - roadway
lighting and street lighting. AASHTO GL-6 Roadway Lighting Design
Guide
Roadway lighting is provided for freeways, express-
ways, limited access roadways, and roads on which IES HB-10-11 IES Lighting Handbook,
pedestrians, cyclists, and parked vehicles are gener- 10th Edition
ally not present. The primary purpose of roadway CIE 191 Recommended System for
lighting is to help the motorist remain on the roadway Mesopic Photometry Based
and help with the detection of obstacles within and on Visual Performance
beyond the range of the vehicles headlights. IES DG-5-94 Recommended Lighting
for Walkways and Class 1
Street lighting is provided for major, collector, and local Bikeways
roads were pedestrians and cyclists are generally
present. The primary purpose of street lighting is to IES DG-10-12 Choosing Light Sources for
help the motorist identify obstacles, provide adequate General Lighting*
visibility of pedestrians and cyclists, and assist in visual IES DG-19-08 Design Guide for Roundabout
search tasks, both on and adjacent to the street. Lighting
FHWA-SA-11-22
1.4 Related Documents 2012 FHWA Lighting Handbook
There are several documents that possibly cover IES G-1-03 Guideline for Security Lighting
areas related to roadway or pedestrian lighting that for People, Property, and
Public Spaces

2
 ANSI/IES RP-8-14

IES LM-50-13 Photometric Measurement of Major: That part of the roadway system that serves
Roadway and Street Lighting as the principal network for through-traffic flow. The
Installations routes connect areas of principal traffic generation
IES RP-20-98* Lighting for Parking Facilities and important rural roadways entering and leaving
the city. These routes are often known as “arterials,”
ANSI/IES RP-22-11 Standard Practice for Tunnel
“thoroughfares,” or “preferentials.” They are some-
Lighting
times subdivided into primary and secondary; how-
IES RP-33-99* Lighting for Exterior ever, such distinctions are not necessary in roadway
Environments lighting. These routes primarily serve through traffic
IES TM-11-00/R11 Light Trespass: and secondarily provide access to abutting property.
Research, Results and
Recommendations Collector: Roadways servicing traffic between
IES TM-12-12 Spectral Effects of Lighting major and local streets. These are streets used
on Visual Performance at mainly for traffic movements within residential, com-
Mesopic Light Levels mercial and industrial areas. They do not handle
IES TM-15-11 Luminaire Classification long, through trips. Collector streets may be used
System for Outdoor for truck or bus movements and give direct service
Luminaires to abutting properties.

Note: The Light Source Annex in the previous ver- Local: Local streets are used primarily for direct
sion of RP-8 was outdated and has been removed. access to residential, commercial, industrial, or other
Since light sources are evolving so rapidly the reader abutting property. They make up a large percentage
is referred to IES DG-10-12 Choosing Light Sources of the total street system, but carry a small propor-
for General Lighting, for up to date information. tion of vehicular traffic.

Note: *withdrawn - contact IES for the latest version Alley: Narrow public ways within a block, gener-
or a copy of the withdrawn document. ally used for vehicular access to the rear of abutting
properties.

2.0 CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS Sidewalk: A paved or otherwise improved area for
pedestrian use, located within public street rights- of-
way, which also contain roadways for vehicular traffic.
The definitions used in this practice might be used
and defined differently by other documents, zoning Pedestrian Walkway: A public walk for pedes-
bylaws, building codes, and agencies. For lighting trian traffic, not necessarily within the right-of-way
design purposes, the classification for an area or of a vehicular traffic roadway. Included are skywalks
roadway should best fit the descriptions contained (pedestrian overpasses), sub-walks (pedestrian tun-
within this recommended practice and not how clas- nels), and walkways giving access through parks or
sified by other sources. block interiors.

2.1 Roadway, Pedestrian Walkway, and Crosswalk: any portion of a roadway at an intersec-
Bikeway Classifications tion or elsewhere distinctly indicated as a pedes-
trian crossing by lines on the surface, which may
Freeway: A divided highway with full control of be supplemented by contrasting pavement texture,
access. style, or color.
Freeway A: Roadways with great visual complexity Isolated Interchange: A grade-separated road-
and high traffic volumes. Usually this way crossing with one or more ramp connections
type of freeway will be found in major between the crossing roadways, which is lighted and
metropolitan areas in or near the central is not part of a continuous roadway lighted system.
core and will operate at or near design
capacity through some of the early Isolated Intersection: A lighted area in which two
morning or evening hours of darkness. or more non-continuously lighted roadways join or
All other divided roadways with full
Freeway B:  cross at the same level. This area includes the road-
control of access. way and roadside facilities for traffic movement in
that area. A special type is the channelized intersec-
Expressway: A divided highway with partial control tion, in which traffic is directed into definite paths by
of access. islands with raised curbing.

3
ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Isolated Traffic Conflict Area: A traffic conflict area Medium - Areas where lesser numbers of pedestri-
is an area on a road system where an increased ans utilize the streets at night. Typical are downtown
potential exists for collisions between vehicles, vehi- office areas, blocks with libraries, apartments, neigh-
cles and/or pedestrians, and vehicles and fixed borhood shopping, industrial, parks, and streets with
objects. Examples include intersections, crosswalks transit lines.
and merge areas. When this area occurs on a road-
way without a fixed lighting system (or separated Low - Areas with very low volumes of night pedes-
from one by 20 seconds or more of driving time), it is trian usage. These can occur in any of the cited
considered an isolated traffic conflict area. roadway classifications but may be typified by sub-
urban streets with single family dwellings, very low
Bikeway: Any road, street, path, or way that is spe- density residential developments, and rural or semi-
cifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, rural areas.
regardless of whether such facilities are designed
for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared The choice of the appropriate pedestrian activ-
with other transportation modes. Five basic types of ity level for a street is an engineering decision. If
facilities are used to accommodate bicyclists: needed, one hour pedestrian counts can be taken
during the first hour of darkness on some selected
Shared lane: shared motor vehicle/bicycle use of a days, to establish the estimated average pedestrian
“standard”-width travel lane. traffic counts. A section of typical land use can be
sampled by counting one or two representative
Wide outside lane: an outside travel lane with a blocks, or a single block of unusual characteristics
width of at least 4.2 m (13.8 ft.). can be counted, perhaps at a different hour, such as
discharge from a major event. The volume of pedes-
Bike lane: a portion of the roadway designated by trian activity during the hour of count that warrants
striping, signing, and/or pavement markings for pref- increased lighting levels is not fixed and represents
erential or exclusive use of bicycles. a local option. Guidelines for possible local consid-
eration are:
Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway adjacent
to the edge stripe. Low – 10 or fewer pedestrians/hour
Medium – 1 to 100 pedestrians/hour
Separate bike path: a facility physically separated
from the roadway and intended for bicycle use (see High – over 100 pedestrians/hour
IESNA DG-5-94, Lighting for Walkways and Class
1 Bikeways* for requirements in these areas. *See These volumes represent the total number of pedes-
note on previous page.) trians walking in both directions in a typical block or
200 meter (660 ft.) section.
Median: The portion of a divided roadway physically
separating the traveled ways for traffic in opposite 2.3 Pavement Classifications
directions.
The calculation of either pavement luminance or
2.2 Pedestrian Conflict Area Classifications Small Target Visibility (STV) requires information
about the directional surface reflectance charac-
The major, collector and local street classifications teristics of the pavement. Studies have shown that
appropriately describe general conditions of vehicu- most common pavements can be grouped into a
lar traffic conflict in urban areas. However, a second limited number of standard road surfaces having
type of conflict, which is responsible for a dispropor- specific reflectance characteristics. This data has
tionate number of nighttime fatalities, is the vehicle/ been experimentally determined and presented in
pedestrian interaction. The magnitude of pedestrian r-Tables. See Annex A for copies of the tables.
flow is nearly always related to the abutting land
use. Three classifications of pedestrian night activity For purposes of this Practice, pavement reflec-
levels and the types of land use with which they are tance characteristics follow the CIE (Commission
typically associated are given below: International de l’Éclairage) Four Class system (ref.
CIE 140-2000). A description of road surface classifi-
High - Areas with significant numbers of pedestrians cations is given in Table 1. The classification is based
expected to be on the sidewalks or crossing the on the specularity of the pavement (S1), and a scal-
streets during darkness. Examples are downtown ing factor Q° as determined by the overall “lightness”
retail areas, near theaters, concert halls, stadiums, of the pavement. The normalized Q° is given in Table
and transit terminals. 1 for each of the pavements described. Greater accu-

4
 ANSI/IES RP-8-14

racy in predicting Visibility Level (VL) and pavement

luminance can be achieved by evaluating specific
pavements as to their S1 ratio and specific Q° and
then choosing the correct r-Table. The S1 ratio and
specific Q° for a pavement can be determined in one
of two ways: (1) a core sample can be removed from
the pavement and photometrically tested by a quali-
fied laboratory; (2) a field evaluation can be made
(for further information see Annex D, Reference 9).
Actual pavement reflectance and specularity will vary
with pavement age and wear.

Table 1. Road Surface Classifications

Mode of
Class Q Description
° Reflectance
Portland cement concrete
road surface.
Asphalt road surface
with a minimum of Figure 2a: LCS main solid angles. (© Illuminating
R1 0.10 12 percent of the aggregates Mostly Diffuse
Engineering Society of North America)
composed
of artificial brightener
(e.g. Synopal) aggregates
(e.g. labradorite, quartzite)
Asphalt road surface with an
aggregate composed of a
minimum 60 percent gravel
(size greater than 1cm.).
Mixed (diffuse
R2 0.07 Asphalt road surface with and specular)
10 to 15 percent artificial
brightener in aggregate mix.
(Not normally used
in North America)
Asphalt road surface (regular
and carpet seal) with dark
aggregates
Slightly
R3 0.07 (e.g. trap rock, blast furnace
Specular
slag); rough texture after
some months of use (typical
highways).
Asphalt road surface with Mostly
R4 0.08
very smooth texture Specular

2.4 Luminaire Classification System (LCS)

The IES classification of luminaires is provided in

IES TM-15-11, Luminaire Classification System for
Outdoor Luminaires. The LCS system defines the
distribution of light from the luminaire within three
primary solid angles; including uplight, backlight, and
forward light, as illustrated in Figure 2a.

The primary areas are further divided into 10 sec-

ondary solid angles, illustrated in Figure 2b.

An LCS luminaire report for a typical cobra-head style

luminaire is shown in Figure 3. The percent of lumi-
naire lumens is noted in each of the zones allowing
the designer to understand more fully the impact and
performance of the luminaire. A B-U-G rating is given
to assist the designer in understanding the backlight, Figure 2b: Secondary solid angles. (© Illuminating
uplight, and glare characteristics of the luminaire. Engineering Society of North America)

5
ANSI/IES RP-8-14

LUMINAIRE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LCS GRAPH

vehicular traffic, and level of traffic control, a motor-
ist’s rate of travel is typically slower in urban areas.
The higher levels of background lighting found in
urban areas can augment roadway illuminance
provided by lighting systems, but can also produce
glare and distraction. Thus, off-road light sources can
either assist or disorient drivers.

3.2 Appearance and Scale

In areas with heavy pedestrian traffic, luminaire

height and pole design should consider and respond
to the human scale. This often results in the use
of lower pole/mounting heights for street lighting,
3 to 6 meters (10 to 25 ft.), instead of more typical
roadway lighting pole heights of 10 to 15 meters (25
to 50 ft.). In some cases a combination of mounting
height ranges are used to meet the needs of the
pedestrian as well as the driver. Controlling glare
Figure 3: Cobrahead style luminaire LCS plot. (Graphic and maximizing system efficiencies are difficult with
courtesy of Rick Kauffman) lower mounting heights. Because of this and other
LCS Rating: F6-33-19-1, B6-26-10-1, U0-0. reasons described in this practice the cost of the
Front: Low=6 1%, Medium=32.6%, High=18.7%, lighting system in these areas is greater than in lower
Very High=0.1%. pedestrian use areas.
Back: Low=6.1%, Medium=26.2%, High=10.0%,
Very High=0.2%. 3.3 Visual Task
Uplight: Low=0.0%, High=0.0%.
An effort should be made to completely understand
the visual task in a given setting48. Too often the
Since this method of luminaire classification has designer thinks only in terms of the driving task.
replaced the previous classification system of When designing for areas of congestion or significant
vertical light control--cutoff, semi-cutoff, and non- interest, allowance needs to be made for the myriad
cutoff-- the IES Roadway Lighting Committee is of tasks. These would include seeing pedestrians,
evaluating its applicability and suggested limits for dropping off passengers, viewing elements within
inclusion in ANSI/IES RP-8-14. Since the LCS sys- the streetscape, dealing with traffic tie-ups, reading
tem is based on the percent of luminaire lumens signs, or other driving tasks related to urban areas.
within the zones of solid angles of a sphere and the Other users of the urban street right of way, such as
previous system is based on light intensities on a pedestrians and bicyclists, will also require adequate
lateral and transverse grid on a target area, there lighting for their tasks. The recommendations includ-
is no direct correlation between the two systems. ed in this practice are for typical situations. If the
The former system was defined in IES TM-3 (with- designer notes unusual situations when considering
drawn) and is now given for reference in Annex E these items then reasonable engineering judgment
of this practice. should be applied when applying the recommenda-
tions in this standard practice.

3.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 3.4 Integration with Non-Lighting Elements

In urban areas, particularly in medium to high pedes-

3.1 Design Issues trian usage areas, many elements might have to be
integrated and coordinated with the lighting system.
There are several major issues that affect driver Some of these elements are noted in Figure 4. The
visibility differently between rural and urban areas, locations of light poles need to be coordinated with
and also between limited access and uncontrolled the street furniture and landscaping. An assessment
access roads. These include differences in speed, might be required of the impact that these objects will
levels of background luminance, frequency of inter- have on the performance of the lighting system. The
sections and driveways, presence of curb parking, designer and owner of the lighting system should
and most importantly, the number of pedestrians look at the installation with all of the non-lighting ele-
present. Because of the increase in pedestrian and ments and work to resolve conflicts.

6
 ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Figure 4:
Elements of the
lighted Right-of-way.

these issues and be pre-

pared to design a light-
ing system that meets
the needs of the client/
owner, while also con-
sidering the effect of the
lighting system on the
environment.

The common term "glare",

as it affects human
vision, is subdivided into
two components, disabil-
ity glare, and discomfort
glare. Disability glare is
the glare that results in
reduced visual perfor-
mance and visibility. It
often is accompanied by
discomfort. Discomfort
glare is the glare produc-
ing a sense of annoy-
ance or pain. It does not
necessarily reduce the
ability to see an object,
but produces a sensa-
tion of discomfort due to
3.5 Vertical Surface Illumination high contrast of a non- uniform distribution in the
field of view. The criterion used for roadway lighting
Illuminated building faces can provide a sense of secu- to address disability glare is limiting the veiling lumi-
rity and mitigation for the shadows (off the street) cre- nance ratio of a lighting system.16,17
ated by roadway fully shielded luminaires in standard
layouts. Adding a small percentage of higher vertical Light trespass is the amount of light that leaves a
angle light to the photometric distribution of the lumi- specific site and enters another site. While many
naire can provide “fill light” to enliven the architectural roadway lighting systems cannot effectively limit or
facades at night. Care should be exercised in selection contain light to just the roadway or pedestrian areas,
of the optical type and equipment placement to avoid designs should be performed to limit the amount of
creating an obtrusive condition for the motorist or the trespass light. IES TM-11-00(R2011) Light Trespass:
abutting property users. Vertical illumination also plays Research, Results, and Recommendations, pro-
a critical role in producing visibility of pedestrians, vides guidelines on limitations for light trespass.
cyclists, and objects within street environments.
Sky glow is the luminance that is created in the
3.6 Glare and Sky-Glow Issues night sky by light scattered within the atmosphere
directed back towards an observer, thereby dimin-
Roadway lighting systems are under increasing ishing or completely obscuring the view of the
scrutiny from various sectors of the public. While the night sky. One method to limit sky glow is to limit
general public is not usually aware of specific design the amount of light directed towards the sky. This
requirements of roadway lighting systems, obser- includes limiting the amount of total light used in an
vations of glare, light trespass, and sky-glow, are area, and limiting uplight from luminaires (see CIE
widely perceived and might be subject to criticism. Report 126, 1997, Guidelines for Minimizing Sky
Lighting designers should become familiar with Glow for more guidance).

7
ANSI/IES RP-8-14

Figure 5 a,b,c: Examples of light trespass and sky glow. (Images courtesy of International Dark Sky Association IDA.)

The impact of lighting is different in relative terms 3.8 Impact of Trees on Lighting
depending on the surrounding area. The addition
of a lighting system using the higher end of the Trees are an important and valued element for the
recommended horizontal and vertical lighting levels social, economic and environmental benefits they
will not have the same impact in an urban area with provide for all users. However, if the size and shape of
extensive ambient lighting from stores, signs, park- mature trees are not taken into consideration as part of
ing lots, etc., as it will in a rural area with low ambi- the lighting design, then roadway and roadside func-
ent lighting levels. In order to differentiate areas tions and safety can be compromised. Tree location
the IES has developed Lighting Zones describing and species selection can reduce lighting levels below
different ambient lighting conditions. The appropri- the thresholds intended to maintain the safety of the
ate lighting level restrictions at each of the above roadway or the safety and security of pedestrians, bicy-
Lighting Zones is currently under review by the clists and transit users, and can prove to be a detriment
IES Roadway Lighting Committee but were not to the intended functions and safety of the roadway
validated and available at the time of this revision. and roadside. Likewise, lighting location and design
See the Joint IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance that is incompatible with trees may require excessive
(MLO), IES RP-33 Outdoor Environmental Lighting tree trimming, which could prove to be unsustainable in
or the IES Lighting Handbook, 10th Edition, for terms of maintenance and operations costs and detri-
more information. mental to the intended function and health of the trees.

3.7 Impact of Headlights In an investigation conducted in Minnesota43, trees

were found to have a significant impact on the light-
Headlights are the primary system intended to ing system and delivered lighting levels. Lighting
assist drivers with seeing objects on and along the level measurements were taken at two test locations
road. The ability of headlights to provide for detec- in the summer when leaves were present on the
tion of objects at higher vehicle speeds may not be trees and in the winter when these deciduous trees
adequate. It is known that at higher speeds the safe had lost their leaves. In these tests horizontal lighting
sight stopping distance can exceed the visual detec- levels on the sidewalks were shown to be reduced
tion distance provided by low beam headlights.44,45,46 19 to 33 percent and vertical lighting values were
reduced 21 percent to 65 percent by the foliage.
Computer modeling has been performed, using
available photometric files for low beam headlights, The effect of trees on lighting levels is not sufficiently
to determine when headlights alone would provide quantified to develop exact modifications for designs,
sufficient illumination to meet the requirements of but this report suggests an additional light loss factor
this recommended practice. The parameter evalu- of 10 to 20 percent be included in design when new
ated in the analysis was the vertical illuminance crite- or existing trees are in close proximity to the light-
ria for the pedestrian areas adjacent to the roadway. ing. Although this is a least desirable option, (see
Section 5.11.2). As a minimum, the lighting system
Based on the analysis, it appears that vehicle head- should be coordinated with any new or existing land-
lights alone may meet the lighting requirements scaping. Lighting designers should also consider
for roadways with speeds below 30 mph (approx. consulting with arborists to evaluate the potential
50 km/h) and with little or no pedestrian activity. long-term impact of specific species of trees.
Because this was a limited analysis, based on com-
puter modeling, and many variables are involved 3.9 Spectral Considerations
in the decision to provide supplemental lighting,
the designer and governing authority shall decide IES TM-12-12, Spectral Effects of Lighting on Visual
whether lighting is warranted. Performance at Mesopic Light Levels, discusses