CitemetrixAnalysis_MiamiBeach_20161
// CITEMETRIX™ ANALYSIS
2
04
I. Executive Summary
Citemetrix™ Analysis
06
II. Measurement Procedure
The Photometric Patrol Car & Muse®
Software Description
Accessibility Issues
10
III. Importation and Evaluation Data
Import/Quality Assurance
Number of Roadway Segments
Miles of Roadway Measured
Distance Breakdown
Evaluation Standards
3
III. Importation and Evaluation Data
Import/Quality Assurance
Number of Roadway Segments
Miles of Roadway Measured
Distance Breakdown
Evaluation Standards
14
IV. General Findings Overall Summary
Lighting Levels
Measured fc
Overall Summary
Variance From Standard
Uniformity
Compliance Uniformity
Uniformity Overview
Neighborhoods
South
Central
Biscayne Bay
North
Overall Assessment
22
V. Specific Examples
Underlit
Overlit
Low Uniformity
40
VI. Summary/General
Recommendations
4SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITEMETRIX™ ANALYSIS
In mid-2015, Citelum approached the City of Miami Beach to propose
the preparation of a Lighting Master Plan. The goal of such a plan is to
ensure that the City has appropriate and desired lighting levels and lighting
uniformity in accordance with its goals for tourism and public safety, among
other things. Essentially, the right light at the right place and the right time.
Generally, such a process begins with assessing the City’s current lighting by conducting a comprehensive
inventory and analysis of lighting levels, i.e., a Citemetrix™ Analysis. Since the city has an existing, albeit
somewhat dated GIS database of its street lights, it was decided that this database could be utilized for an
initial analysis.
Citelum was advised that one of the City’s main concerns at present is to analyze the current lighting in the city
and assess its adequacy. Citelum was ultimately contracted to perform a photometric analysis of the City’s
street lights for this purpose.
Citelum sent a team of technicians to perform a city-wide photometric analysis for Miami Beach. Over
the course of multiple weeks, the team drove and measured performance of all accessible roadways.
This information was then mapped and analyzed by Citelum engineers in order to generate a top level
understanding of lighting performance.
55
6
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE THE PHOTOMETRIC PATROL CAR & MUSE®
Citelum’s Citemetrix™ Analysis is performed using our proprietary
Computerized Maintenance Management System, MUSE®, and
tailor-made smart lighting vehicle, the Photometric Patrol Car.
MUSE® provides all software from route design to data integration,
and from cross analysis to automatic reports.
The Photometric Patrol Car is equipped with an Illuminance meter (Konica Minolta T10-A), a
GPS radio (BU-353) and a Control PC/Laptop. Through a CAN bus interface, the equipment
also collects the location and odometer readings directly from the vehicle that are then
factored in and recorded to the Control PC running the Photometric Module. LUX meter reading
is recorded for every wheel rotation, in this case every 80 cm.
Equipment calibration is performed by external certified laboratories periodically. Additional
information on the measurement tools may be found in Appendix C.
SECTION II 6
7SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION
Citelum worked with the City of Miami Beach to gather as much existing data as possible
to ensure a successful measurement. This included the GIS layer for street light locations
as well as the street centerlines. This data was then imported into the MUSE® GIS platform
as the basis for the creation of measurement routes, known as “itineraries.” The itineraries
are generated as a method to systematically measure all roadway segments in an
optimized manner.
After the itinerary segments have been created, patrols are scheduled and they are
downloaded to the Control PC. The patrol team consists of a Driver and a Control PC
Technician. The Technician acts as a navigator, providing required direction to the Driver
to record measurements for each itinerary. The Control PC automatically indicates when
the data has been acquired successfully. Also, itineraries are color coded so that roads to
be patrolled are easily distinguishable from roads already patrolled. At the end of each
patrol, data is reviewed and uploaded to the main database for additional quality control.
ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES
During the data collection of the Citemetrix™ Analysis in Miami Beach, specific street
segments were not measured due to accessibility restrictions.
List of Inaccessible Streets:
Española
Lincoln Ave.
Lincoln Rd.
Lincoln Ct.
Euclid Ave.
Drexel Ave.
Lincoln Ln.
N. Bay Rd.
14th & Bay Rd.
Alton Ct.
Meridian Ave.
W. 63rd St.
34th St.
87th Terrace
Atlantic Way & 80th St.
8
9
THE PURPOSE OF A CITEMETRIX™
ANALYSIS IS TO TAKE THE FIRST
STEP TOWARDS A FULLY DESIGNED
LIGHTING MASTER PLAN.
HOW MUCH LIGHT IS THERE?
HOW MUCH LIGHT DOES THERE
NEED TO BE?
WHAT IS THE RIGHT LIGHT,
FOR THE RIGHT APPLICATION,
FOR EVERY LOCATION IN THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH?
10
IMPORTATION & EVALUATION DATA IMPORT / QUALITY ASSURANCE
After an itinerary has been completed, all
measurements from that route are sent to the
main database for quality assurance and control
purposes. After all routes have been completed and
quality-checked, reporting can be performed, as
described in this report
For Miami Beach, we broke down the roadway
segments by roadway type (accompanying chart
3c). The total numbers of segments, and their related
distance are reflected in the accompanying chart:
SECTION III
NUMBER OF ROADWAY SEGMENTS (3a)
Roadway Types
COLLECTOR
EXPRESSWAY
LOCAL
MAJOR
TOTAL
Sections
10
12
1,775
379
2176
DISTANCE BREAKDOWN (MILES) (3c)
11
MILES OF ROADWAY MEASURED (3b)
Roadway Types
COLLECTOR
EXPRESSWAY
LOCAL
MAJOR
TOTAL
Distance (Miles)
1.46
10.05
124.40
33.59
169.49
Distance Percentage
1%
6%
73%
20%
100%
LOCAL (73%)
EXPRESSWAY (6%)
MAJOR (20%)
COLLECTOR (1%)
For reporting purposes, all results are segregated by roadway
type, and in expressed distance instead of by number of street
segments. This provides a better base of measurement, as
roadway segments may vary in length.
12
EVALUATION STANDARDS
After reviewing and providing quality control of the collected data, Citelum was able to begin the evaluation
process. Our goal was to evaluate the measurements against accepted lighting standards, identify over lit and
under lit areas, and calculate the uniformity of each roadway segment.
In order to evaluate the data collected and compare lighting levels to known standards,
Citelum made specific assumptions.
1) Citelum used the IESNA RP-8 Roadway Lighting standards to set the
acceptable lighting level requirements
2) Within the RP-8 standard, lighting levels are outlined by roadway type,
pavement classification, and pedestrian conflict level.
a. Citelum assumed that the roadways measured all have a pavement classification of R2 or R3.
b. The roadway types defined in the RP-8 vary slightly from the City’s roadway type definitions, and
therefore, we made the following assumptions:
SECTION III IMPORTATION & EVALUATION (Continued)
13
INTERSTATE
ARTERIAL
RAMP
RESIDENTIAL
ALLEY
BEACH
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
LOCAL
LOCAL
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
0.9/9.0
1.3/13.0
0.9/9.0
0.7/7.0
0.4/4.0
0.9/9.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Miami Beach Roadway
Classification Nomenclature
RP-8 Equivalent
Nomenclature (Assumed)
Pedestrian Conflict
Area (Assumed)
RP-8 Recommended Illuminance
Level (f.c./LUX)
RP-8 Recommended Uniformity
Ratio (EAVE /EMIN)
The photometric measurements taken were measured with a greater number of significant figures than normally factored into the RP-8 prescribed standards. Also, based on Citelum’s
previous experience, it would be highly unlikely to find any roadway segments adhering exactly to the strict standard. Therefore, Citelum included a safety factor to expand the standard
values to be a range of values. For Illuminance, we factored in a ± 25% allowable variance from standard and for uniformity, we factored in a ± 20% allowable variance from standard.
14
GENERAL FINDINGS OVERALL SUMMARY
The following values have been analyzed for
photometric results:
• Average lighting levels
• Lighting level compliance with standards
• Average uniformity
• Uniformity compliance with standards
All results are broken down by roadway types, following the
IESNA recommendations.
SECTION IV
LIGHTING LEVELS (FULL RESULTS IN APPENDIX A)
For each roadway segment, the average Illuminance has been calculated based on all measured
values for this segment. The full results are available in Appendix A.
Then for each roadway type, the average Illuminance has been calculated and compared to
the RP-8 standard values. Results below are displayed in foot-candles (fc), following the
IESNA recommendations.
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
0.92
1.07
0.68
1.11
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.63*
Roadway
Types
Average
Illuminance (fc)
Standard
Illuminance (fc)
*Standard Illuminance for local roadways can either be 0.4, 0.7 or 0.9 fc
based on pedestrian conflict area factor.
15
RIGHT
This map shows overlit and underlit
road segments of Miami Beach.
The roadway segments shown in red
are overlit, while the areas shown in
black are underlit. The areas in green
have lighting that is compliant with
the standard Illuminance.
MEASURED LUX
Meets Standards
Overlit
Underlit
0.200.0 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
Average Illuminance (fc)Standard Illuminance (fc)
1.40
16
SECTION IV GENERAL FINDINGS & OVERALL SUMMARY (Continued)
VARIANCE FROM STANDARD
Red
Orange
Yellow
Grey
Black
+1.0
+0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
(Over Standard)
(Equal to Standard)
(Below Standard)
OVERALL SUMMARY
The following map provides a graphic representation of measured
Illuminance compared to the applicable standard.
Note specific areas of the city are consistently overlit while other sections
are lit below standard. Further detail on measurements can be found in
subsequent pages of this section.
1717
18
OVERALL SUMMARY
On average, expressway, major and collector roadways are lit below standards.
Local roadways, however, are highly above standards on average.
When we break down the results in terms of compliance with standards, a roadway type
can appear close to standards, but individual street results are typically overlit or underlit,
giving the incorrect impression of averaging near the recommended standards.
When comparing results to recommended standards, the average Illuminance by street
segment can be deemed:
• Compliant with standard (if included in a +/- 25% range)
• Underlit
• Overlit
The results below are shown in percentage of the total distance in miles
for each one of the four roadway types:
SECTION IV GENERAL FINDINGS & OVERALL SUMMARY (Continued)
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
GRAND TOTAL
59.1%
46.3%
67.6%
33.3%
37.7%
8.1%
33.1%
12.4%
16.2%
19.0%
32.8%
20.5%
20.0%
50.5%
43.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Roadway Type Underlit Compliant Overlit Grand Total
19
10%0 20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
Underlit Compliant Overlit
37.7%
19.0%
43.2%
20
UNIFORMITY
CALCULATING UNIFORMITY
(FULL RESULTS IN APPENDIX B. )
For each roadway segment, the average uniformity
has been calculated based on all measured values
for this segment, using the following formula:
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE
MINIMUM ILLUMINANCE
Roadway Types
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
Average Uniformity
4
8
4
7
Standard Uniformity
3
3
4
6
SECTION IV GENERAL FINDINGS & OVERALL SUMMARY (Continued)
Then for each roadway type, the average uniformity has been
calculated and compared to the standard values, following the
IESNA recommendations. The results are below:
21
ABOVE
This map shows the uniformity
of road segments in Miami
Beach. Black lines represent
road segments with low
uniformity. Green lines
represent road segments with
adequate to high uniformity.
2.00.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
Average Uniformity Standard Uniformity
COMPLIANCE UNIFORMITY
Low Uniformity
Uniform
High Uniformity
22SECTION IV GENERAL FINDINGS & OVERALL SUMMARY
UNIFORMITY OVERVIEW
Uniformity is expressed as a ratio of Average Illuminance divided by the Minimum
Illuminance, meaning a calculated value of 1 is “perfectly uniform” lighting.
Roadways that are not uniform will exhibit bright and dark areas, meaning the ratio
between the average and minimum lighting levels will be a larger number.
On average, expressways and major roadways exhibit low levels of uniformity
(calculated value greater than standard). Both collectors and local roadways are
generally uniform or exhibit greater uniformity than required, meaning the ratio is
closer to “perfect uniformity” than required.
When comparing results to recommended standards, the average uniformity by
street segment can be deemed:
• Compliant with standard (if included in a +/- 20% range)
• High Uniformity (if uniformity is lower than 80% of the standard)
• Low Uniformity (if uniformity is higher than 120% of the standard)
The results below are showed in percentage of the total distance in miles for each
one of the four roadway types:
SECTION IV GENERAL FINDINGS & OVERALL SUMMARY (Continued)
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
GRAND TOTAL
86%
85%
32%
33%
47%
14%
10%
5%
14%
13%
0%
6%
63%
53%
41%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Roadway Type Low Uniformity Adequate Uniformity Highly Uniformity Grand Total
23
10%0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR
COLLECTOR
LO CAL
Highly Uniform Adequate Uniformity Poorly Uniform
24
25
LEGEND
2.0+1.5 1.0
(fc)
0.5 0
SOUTH
NEIGHBORHOODS INCLUDED
South Point
Flamingo/Lummus
West Avenue
Star Island
Palm Island
Hibiscus Island
Venetian Islands
ILLUMINATION TRENDS
The South of Miami Beach is world renowned
tourist destination. Currently, most of the area
is brightly lit. While this may be more light
than standards require, it could be a strategic
choice to over light this area.
One exception is the area west of
Flamingo Park, which is considerably darker
and lit below standard.
25
26
27
CENTRAL
NEIGHBORHOODS INCLUDED
Bayshore
City Center
Ocean Front
Nautilus
ILLUMINATION TRENDS
Central Miami Beach begins the transition from tourist
mecca to residential area. With this known, lower
lighting levels are seen and accepted. These local
roadways are lit slightly below standards.
Major roadways, such as Alton Road or the Julia
Tuttle Causeway, while lit to the same level of these
residential neighborhoods, require greater levels of
lighting and improvements may be required.
LEGEND
2.0+1.5 1.0
(fc)
0.5 0
27
28
29
BISCAYNE BAY
NEIGHBORHOODS INCLUDED
Ocean Front
Nautilus
La Gorce
ILLUMINATION TRENDS
Similar to the trends exhibited in central
Miami Beach, the area surrounding La Gorce
are lit to a lower level, with major streets
(Alton Road, W 63rd Street) lit below standards.
LEGEND
2.0+1.5 1.0
(fc)
0.5 0
29
30
31NORTH
NEIGHBORHOODS INCLUDED
North Shore
Normandy Isle
Normandy Shores
La Gorce
Biscayne Point
ILLUMINATION TRENDS
As the Miami Beach becomes more heavily trafficked
in the North, lighting levels increase to those seen
in the South portion. Again, this may be a strategic
decision by the City.
The major difference is the existence of dark spots
within the roadway network. On Collins Ave, poor
uniformity leads to dark corners lit below standard.
Also, Normandy Drive / 71st Street stand out from
the surrounding streets with considerably lower
lighting levels.
LEGEND
2.0+1.5 1.0
(fc)
0.5 0
31
32
POORLY UNIFORM
UNIFORM
HIGHLY UNIFORM
GRAND TOTAL
17.8
2.7
43.4
63.9
14.0
9.5
8.7
32.3
47.1
9.2
16.9
73.3
79.0
21.5
69.0
169.5
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
In order to assess the overall compliance with standards, Citelum
cross referenced the data collected for Illuminance and Uniformity.
The following table shows (in miles of roadway) how much of
the overall system falls within the assumed acceptable range for
Illuminance and Uniformity when compared to standards.
The portions of the data in grey represent the amount of roadway
that is underlit, overlit, and/or not uniform.
This information is for all roadway types. The data can be parsed
by roadway type, as described further in Section 6, General
Recommendations.
SECTION IV GENERAL FINDINGS & OVERALL SUMMARYSECTION IV GENERAL FINDINGS & OVERALL SUMMARY (Continued)
Uniformity Underlit Compliant Overlit Grand Total
18.2%
of roadways meet both Illuminance
and Uniformity standards
33
34SECTION V
ILLUMINANCE OVERLIT - UNDERLIT
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES - UNDERLIT
This is an example of a very dark/underlit intersection in an area of the city that is mostly underlit. Available street lighting is either
not working or obstructed by overgrown trees. Additional maintenance may provide better service in this area. If the City elects to
install new LED street lights, properly designed lighting can alleviate these issues.
LEGEND
2.0+1.5 1.0 0.5 0
(fc)
LEGEND
Overlit Meets Standards Underlit
34
35
UNDERLIT INTERSECTION
13TH & LENNOX
35
36SECTION IV SPECIFIC EXAMPLES (Continued)
ILLUMINANCE OVERLIT - UNDERLIT
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES - OVERLIT
This shows an example of a technically overlit street. Given the location, land use, and pedestrian movement in the area,
the City may elect to keep the lighting of the roadway at an elevated level for safety.
LEGEND
2.0+1.5 1.0 0.5 0
(fc)
LEGEND
Overlit Meets Standards Underlit
37
OVERLIT INTERSECTION
WASHINGTON AVE. (BETWEEN 12TH & 13TH)
37
38SECTION IV SPECIFIC EXAMPLES (Continued)
ILLUMINANCE OVERLIT - UNDERLIT
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES - POORLY UNIFORM
This major roadway provides a good example of the importance of uniformity and properly designed lighting. While the lighting level is close to standard, the lighting mid-block
is measurably lower (approximately 1.0 fc) than the lighting at the intersections. This is most likely caused by the fixture type (Post Top) and location (offset from roadway) along
Ocean Drive as compared to the cobra head fixtures used to illuminate the intersections. This poor uniformity can lead to drivers having issues adjusting their eyes to higher
levels of glare when entering brighter spaces. On a roadway with heavy pedestrian traffic, like Ocean Drive, this can lead to safety issues.
LEGEND
2.0+1.5 1.0 0.5 0
(fc)
LEGEND
Overlit Meets Standards Underlit
39
POORLY UNIFORM INTERSECTION
OCEAN DR. (BETWEEN 7TH & 8TH)
39
40SECTION VI
After a thorough review of the lighting conditions in Miami Beach, Citelum has reached a few general conclusions:
1) Only approximately 18.2% of the roadways (by mileage) fall within the assumed acceptable range
for Illuminance and Uniformity when compared to standards
2) Expressways are either underlit or overlit, but in most cases display low uniformity
3) Major roadways can be underlit, compliant or overlit but in most cases the uniformity is low
4) The majority of surveyed collectors are underlit, however the uniformity is acceptable
5) A variety of issues can be observed on local roadways, with entire sections of the City that are
overlit as well as specific underlit streets
SUMMARY
40
41
42SECTION VI
Based on these findings, Citelum suggests the following:
1) The City should update their existing inventory of street lights to account for any information that is more than 5 years out of date
2) The City should work with industry to develop a Lighting Master Plan. This plan will define the lighting goals of the City, as
performing only to standard may not best the best option for specific regions. For example:
a. The City may choose to continue to over light the main tourist and commercial centers of the city
b. The City should define a desirable lighting level for residential neighborhoods
c. Working with Police Department and the Emergency Services, the City should identify areas within
the city that should be over lit with the goals of crime prevention and increased safety
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
42
43
3) The City should improve the operation and maintenance services to address street light outages in proactive
or preventative manner. This can be accomplished through a robust Computerized Maintenance Management
System (CMMS), higher standards for O&M performance through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), or the
introduction of an advanced street light monitoring and control system
4) The City could include a remote control system on LED lights, setting a schedule for lighting levels. Specific
areas can be kept bright when needed and adjusted during off-peak hours
5) The uniformity of street lighting within the City should be improved. This can be accomplished multiple ways:
a. The city can investigate the possibility of adding additional street lights where needed and removing
extraneous luminaires
b. The city can investigate upgrading the existing street lights to LED. LED fixtures provide directed light and
with proper design (distribution types, low back-light and glare, etc.) uniformity issues can be corrected
44