Issues & Analysis: Dark Skies And Safe Roads. Can We Have Both? (Part 3)

Mode Shift: Supporting Sustainable, Equitable Transportation

The latest Amherst streetlights policy proposal is coming up for discussion — and a likely vote — on Monday (August 7). Unfortunately, it’s not ready yet. Councilors Mandi Jo Hanneke and Ana Devlin Gauthier have revised the proposal and added a narrative to explain their good intentions. A few points in this version are better than earlier versions, but as written it will still worsen nighttime safety in Amherst and obstruct a transportation mode shift to more walking, biking, scootering, transit riding, wheelchairing, and other non-car mobility. 

A better streetlights policy is possible — one that can address protection of the night sky and provision of streetlighting for safety and for a transportation mode shift. Town councilors, you and your colleagues have worked hard on this; please wait and finish this task right. Amherst residents, now is the time for you to write to your town councilors and ask them to delay their decision so that the sponsors can add safety standards, make the night sky protections less rigid, at least allow (without a cumbersome waiver process) and preferably require lighting that will support a transportation mode shift, and ensure the town has a smooth, fair, and public process to balance tradeoffs.

This week’s Mode Shift column is the final installment in a three-part series on streetlights in Amherst. Part 1 focused on the policy proposal before the council. I described the policy’s worthwhile goal of protecting the night sky and reducing light pollution. I also described the sometimes-conflicting goal of safety, whose critical importance is evidenced by data on fatal and serious crashes in Amherst. Part 2 asked what kind of lighting could encourage people to bike, walk, and take the bus at night (or in bad weather if necessary), and whether this could be done while also reducing nighttime lighting. In both, I used diagrams to summarize technical detail.

In today’s column, Part 3, I provide a geographic categorization of Amherst streets to suggest how Amherst might organize its lighting to address these goals while dealing effectively with tradeoffs, and how this could be written into the current policy proposal. Once again, I use diagrams to summarize technical detail.

First, A Brief Summary Of What Is At Stake
For those who want to cut to the chase for the Monday Town Council meeting deadline, here is the summary of what is still missing from the newly revised policy proposal:

1. The technical performance standards in the appendix still prioritize darkness, overriding safety performance standards. Specifically: The restrictions against light trespass and nuisance preclude adequate lighting on sidewalks and shoulders (and may invite increased common-law claims and lawsuits against the town); the standards for yellowish light to protect darkness (≤ 2700K) do not meet the recommended spectrum of color for safety (3000-4000K); and the standards for illumination will almost certainly fail to provide adequate visibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and users of mobility aids (this cannot be confirmed because the proposed policy references a manual that has a prohibitively high cost and cannot be referenced by the public). I have posted on the web a table detailing the conflicts between the proposed policy’s darkness performance standard and pedestrian and bicycle performance standards.
   
2. The language about when the town may provide streetlights in additional locations is overly narrow. Specifically: the town will not be permitted to  provide new lights for safety except in special “potentially hazardous [locations such as] severe curves or topographical changes or areas with a high accident history.” Nor will the town provide additional lights to support pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, or users of mobility aids, except for specific locations with existing “heavy pedestrian or bicycle traffic, such as in the vicinity of schools and in […] commercial areas.” These restrictions will prevent improved lighting to support new or improved bike and pedestrian corridors and a transportation mode shift. Additional streetlights for pedestrians in residential neighborhoods are specifically not permitted, which would seem to apply to roads like Heatherstone that may run through neighborhoods but are also major connectors with significant traffic and a public bus route.
   
3. There is no system nor is there any process to work systematically, transparently, and with public participation through tradeoffs between protecting nighttime darkness, providing lighting for safety, and cost. 

How can this policy be modified to produce a win-win solution for night skies, safety, and a transportation mode shift? In the following I summarize what is needed, and then provide further analysis of different conditions in Amherst that demonstrate why and how this kind of approach can solve tradeoffs and build win-win solutions. 

Local Policy And Practice Can Produce Win-Win Solutions That Provide For Dark Skies, Safety, Cost Control, And A Transportation Mode Shift
A community that wants to provide adequate lighting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, and protect the night sky by reducing reduce light pollution, needs three things:

(1) a commitment to both sets of goals;

(2) a clear analysis of where and how the goals conflict;

(3) a coherent public process to find win-win solutions whenever and wherever possible, and to work through both general and site-specific tradeoffs when necessary.

The most important strengths of the current policy proposal are: its clear justification of protections for darkness and its appendix of technical specifications for lighting changes. The ingredients that are missing are: a lack of equal attention to safety standards, recognition that additional streetlighting is essential to support a transportation mode shift, and establishment of a better system for outreach to and input from neighbors and other residents, pedestrians, cyclists, and other transportation users and potential users.

I would not suggest simply a more flexible approach, which is effectively the current approach: a minimal policy with guidance for placement of, but no particular standards for, lighting. The Department of Public Works, advised by the Town Council among others, currently lights streets and paths with consideration for multiple objectives, including cost, but this approach has created undesirable light in some areas, as noted by the policy’s sponsors, and dangerous darkness in others (see Part 1).

Better, then, is to add equally specific streetlighting standards for safety, focusing especially on streetlighting standards for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people using mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, walkers, and canes. Here is a summary of what these should be based on current guidelines that I have put together. 

If I were writing the policy, I would also specify that both the dark-sky standards and the safety standards could be updated according to new guidelines as they come out from authoritative sources like the Illuminating Engineering Society, the Federal Highway Administration, MassDOT, and the National Association of City Transportation Officials. 

Then, having both sets of standards (dark skies and safety) in the policy, the next crucial need is to reconcile conflicting interests because many of their specifics are in  direct conflict with each other,  considerations come into play as well. I analyzed these conflicts in this  table posted on the web. The policy must recognize that there are trade-offs among limiting light pollution, providing lighting for safety, and cost. Then, it needs to parse out the places and times the town should prioritize one or the other, and what process should be used when they come into conflict.

The sponsors of the proposed Amherst policy are  allowing four solutions to tradeoffs so that some lighting could go beyond current dark sky standards. Three of these solutions are:

* a list of locations where streetlights should go; limited modifications for downtown and village centers;  

* a waiver option with procedural guidelines; 

*  a new passage calling for “passive approaches to visibility, such as  reflective roads, well-maintained striping, and crossing beacons.

Let’s consider these three solutions. 

* For safety and a transportation mode shift, a list of locations for streetlights is crucial and will continue to provide streetlighting for some of the most dangerous locations. But it’s the same list as the current policy (the sponsors decided that trying to modify the list is too fraught) and will do nothing to address the continuing danger posed by Amherst’s dark roads to pedestrians and other travelers. 

* The modifications for downtown and village centers are helpful for those specific locations, especially since the town appears willing to invest in the extra streetlighting necessary to make a win-win solution work there. 

* Passive approaches can only help. 

The realistic result of having such rigid standards with such a cumbersome, narrow process, will be that Amherst’s roads get darker, and safety gets marginalized.

The fourth solution in the current version is the only one that could realistically add lighting in dark areas   outside downtown and village centers that otherwise lend themselves to walking, biking, and transit and where  a substantial number of people have been seriously injured and killed because drivers did not see them. That option is to get a waiver from the policy. But the waiver process is cumbersome and puts power into the hands of a limited number of actors (Town Manager, Superintendent of Public Works, and Town Council, with an advisory role for either the Transportation Advisory Council or the Disability Access Advisory Council). Without the waiver, the darkness standards rule supreme and their  specifications are absolute: “shall” language at every step, which means must-meet mandates, and standards that specify extremely low levels of light for “nuisance” and “trespass” — powerful legal standards from common law that invite lawsuits for damages and even the right of property owners to abate (remove) the nuisance. The realistic result of having such rigid standards with such a cumbersome, narrow process, will be that Amherst’s roads get darker, and safety gets marginalized.

Why should additional safety lighting and lighting to promote a mode shift require a cumbersome waiver? Wouldn’t it be better for them to be part of the policy?

This is why the policy should have both sets of standards. Neither should be absolute. Remove the “shalls” and the tight definitions of “nuisance” and “trespass”, while making it clear that both are standards that all streetlighting should aim to meet. Then, add a well-thought-out procedure   for prioritizing which standards are the most  important in a specific place. In all cases, however, require streetlighting or other measures to meet the lower-priority standards as much as possible. Both standards can be met together more easily with greater frequency of pedestrian-scale lighting. But this is expensive, and cost considerations have to be part of the decision process.

A system to deal with tradeoffs could work something like this:

1. Initial categorization: 

• Categorize different kinds of roads or areas in town.
• For each category, invite input on lighting priorities, collect data on past crashes, night sky visibility, and light pollution, and consider aims for future use, including development and promotion of pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit use. Conduct sample night-time and bad-weather site visits, with diverse people (old, young, etc.) walking, biking, driving, and using other modes of transportation.
• In a transparent process that includes area residents as well as relevant town committees, decide the priorities for lighting — safety? night sky? — and how to balance these with other forms of mitigation.
• Implement streetlighting with education, outreach, and mitigation measures.

2. Requests for changes:

• Have a system for public or committee requests for adding, removing, or modifying streetlights or other aspects of lighting, darkness, and visibility.
• On a regular basis — perhaps annually — consider these requests in a systematic way. Decision-making should build on data, neighborhood and user input, development and transportation plans.
• Implement streetlighting changes with education, outreach, and mitigation measures.

These tradeoff decision-making processes must include involvement of the public, including those interested in night sky protection; those interested in safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders; and local neighborhood residents. 

My initial markup on how the current policy might be modified with an example — meant as a starting place — can be seen here. The lighting standards I synthesized and summarized for Part 2 are also crucial resources for a well-thought-out policy, as is the analysis of the conflicts between the two I developed for this third part.

In the next section, I go through a sample categorization of areas and illustrate how one set of standards might be prioritized in each while the other is addressed as much as possible. As with the earlier columns, I use diagrams to illustrate.

A Sample Geography Of Amherst Streets And Possible Win-wins And Tradeoffs
To develop a sense of how to build win-win solutions, it’s helpful to think about this geographically, and build on the diagrams in Parts 1 and 2 of this series. In the following I offer my thoughts on appropriate tradeoffs in several different kinds of locations, as well as comments about what is missing in the current policy proposal to allow these solutions, and what is still needed. I have provided additional diagrams once again to synthesize the details.

• Downtown and village centers

Downtown, and in village centers, there is a good chance for the kind of win-win illumination I illustrated in Figure 4, the higher-cost close-to-ideal lighting.

Figure 4: A close-to-ideal streetscape for reduced light pollution; pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit user safety; and a mode shift. Figure by Eve Vogel.

In these heavily trafficked business areas, the way to balance the tradeoffs might be:

• Reduce lamppost spacing and provide additional lampposts that allow lights which fit the night-sky requirements — yellowish, 15-20 feet height, with restrictions on glare — to provide continuous illumination on sidewalks that meets safety standards (10 vertical or semi-cylindrical lux at 1.5m). The closer spacing and additional lighting require additional funds.
• Prioritize safety requirements in the areas directly adjacent to the sidewalk, to provide the recommended 80% surround ratio — that is, 80% of the illumination of the sidewalk (i.e. 8 vertical lux at 1.5m) in the area directly adjacent to the sidewalk. This improves both safety and a sense of safety and will make the sidewalks more inviting and well used.
• Provide special spotlighting for all crosswalks and bus stops to meet full safety design standards requirements (vertical or semi-cylindrical lux at 1.5m of 20-30 lux, depending on traffic speed). 

The Amherst proposed policy provides for several of these conditions. There are special exceptions built into the policy proposal for downtown and village centers. These exceptions allow some increased illumination, including some upward lighting for decorative lights, and a bit more lighting in adjacent properties. 

However, the restrictions on nuisance and trespass in the policy proposal are still very low and absolute. They would result in adjacent-to-sidewalk illumination far below safety standards. There is also no provision in the policy proposal for additional lighting for crosswalks or bus stops, locations that many studies have shown to be especially hazardous and where safety standards clearly call for higher levels of lighting. 

An important positive for this win-win approach in Amherst is that the town has proved itself willing to invest in more lighting on downtown streets and sidewalks. 

• Quiet neighborhood streets

In quiet neighborhoods, there is a possible solution in which streetlight standards prioritize darkness and other measures are used to address safety. This would be a version of Figure 2, but with fewer travelers and slower traffic:

Figure 5. A neighborhood where streetlights prioritize dark skies. To save on costs, a single streetlight is mounted on a utility pole; some light spillover (“trespass”) into adjacent properties near the light is accepted. For safety, other measures would need to be implemented such as slower speeds (<25 mph), traffic calming, and outreach to encourage pedestrians and bicyclists to use reflectors and lights. The pedestrian in the far right is wearing a reflective vest that picks up a bit of the light from the car’s headlights. 

In a quiet neighborhood street, the way to balance the tradeoffs might be:

• Overall, prioritize the night sky standards for streetlights. However, allow some light spillover (“trespass”) into adjacent properties since many of these lights will be mounted on utility poles to save money. To provide adequate illumination from a single light at 30 feet or so of an intersection or cul-de-sac and the streets coming into it, there will inevitably be some light in the adjacent properties near the lamppost. The town might provide resources or subsidies for trees or dark shades to block incoming light, especially for low-income residents.
• Calm traffic to keep speeds below 25 mph (or slower) since above 25 mph, a pedestrian or bicyclist or mobility-aid user who is hit has more than a 50% chance of dying.
• Provide education and outreach to residents to use lights and reflectors. Especially in low-income neighborhoods or areas with significant resident turnover each year, there could be annual efforts in the fall to promote (and provide) lights and reflectors.
• Before streetlights are dimmed or removed, engage with neighborhood residents about their concerns and priorities. Give greater weight to safety — and therefore additional lighting — in areas with many children or elderly residents, frequent active use of streets or adjacent outdoor properties at night (e.g. soccer or basketball games), people with disabilities, and higher (un-calmed) traffic speeds.

Based on their memo and the new emphasis on non-lighting safety, the creators of the proposed Amherst policy seem to want to meet these kinds of tradeoffs. Missing from the policy, however, are commitments to calm traffic in areas that will be kept dark; education and outreach to promote lights and reflectors; a recognition that some populations and locations may need greater lighting for safety; and most glaringly, any requirement to engage with neighborhood residents. And, as with each of these, also missing is any flexibility in the “no trespass” rules that might enable a single utility pole-mounted streetlight to fully light up an intersection and the roads, including the shoulders, of all the roads coming into it.

• Connector and arterial streets with fast speeds and some bicycle and pedestrian traffic, but not intended as “primary” corridors for bicyclists and pedestrians

Streets like Northeast Street, Bay Road, and Montague Road are considered “secondary” and “external” connectors in the draft Amherst Bicycle and Pedestrian Network map (see p. 28). These roads have fast-moving cars, limited or no sidewalks, and yet still have some pedestrians and cyclists. These are another context where a solution might largely follow protections for darkness, while providing visibility through non-lighting means or user-activated lighting. Figure 6 provides a representation.

Figure 6. A secondary or external connector for bicyclists and pedestrians, where traffic speed is high and there are few or no sidewalks. Well-maintained bright paint striping may help avoid accidents like the one that killed a pedestrian on Northeast Street in 2014. Spotlights at key locations like bus stops and crossings could be motion- or user-activated.

In these roads, ways to balance tradeoffs might be:

• Overall, prioritize the night sky standards for streetlights. However, allow some light spillover (“trespass”) into adjacent properties since many of these lights will be mounted on utility poles to save money. To provide adequate illumination from a single light at 30 feet or so of an intersection or and the streets coming into it, there will inevitably be some light in the adjacent properties near the lamppost. The town might provide resources or subsidies for trees or dark shades to block incoming light, especially for low-income residents.
• For these roads with fast-moving traffic, lights may need to be brighter or less yellow than those in neighborhoods to provide adequate illumination (see Figure 7).
• Provide spotlights in key locations like bus stops and crossings. These might be user- or motion-activated. 
• Maintain bright paint striping, renewed especially in the fall. As possible, explore other ways to improve road and shoulder luminance, especially at bus stops, crossings, and other key locations. Ensure visibility is adequate from enough distance for vehicles to slow down.
• Maintain shoulders with sweeping, plowing and trimming, so pedestrians and cyclists do not need to go inside the shoulder. 
• Conduct outreach to likely pedestrian, cyclist, and transit users of these routes to promote and provide reflectors and lights; and educate drivers to watch for these multi-modal travelers.

This kind of road is perhaps most likely to benefit from the new language in the revised policy that the town should add reflective striping, roadways and signs, and hand-activated beacons where possible, and should check and maintain brightness annually. 

What is still missing? For one thing, stronger language to require these non-lighting visibility measures when streetlighting is not provided and safety standards are unmet. Additionally, once again, the rigidity of the “no trespass” rules will prevent full lighting even of an intersection and the roads, including the shoulders, coming into it. Spotlights for key locations should be possible without a cumbersome waiver from the policy. Education and outreach to promote pedestrians’ and cyclists’ use of lights and reflectors are especially important for these roads if they are to be kept dark, as well as education for drivers to watch for pedestrians, transit riders, and cyclists. A system to gather neighborhood input that may point to a crucial safety need is also needed.

• Connector and arterial streets with medium-to-fast speeds and either current or desired medium-to-heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic — primary connectors for the bicycle and pedestrian network

The fourth category is connector and arterial streets with medium-to-fast speeds and either current or desired medium-to-heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These are likely primary connectors for the bicycle and pedestrian network. These include streets like North Pleasant north of campus, East Pleasant, Main Street outside of downtown, Belchertown Road, West Street, and East Hadley Road. Some have sidewalks, and some have shoulders where people walk. Some have bus stops, and some have marked crosswalks. Some have 40 mph traffic, and some 50 or 60 mph. 

In these roads, the best win-win solutions will prioritize safety and felt safety. This will mean more streetlights, to fill in the gaps between existing lights and provide adequate lighting for bus stops, crossings, and other key areas. Because lighting along extended routes can be expensive, these lights are most likely to be utility pole-mounted lights, and they will be most cost-effective if they can light up relatively large and wide stretches of road and sidewalk. While meeting these constraints, the town should provide for night sky protection and reduced light pollution as much as possible. Figure 7 suggests what this might look like.

Figure 7. On primary pedestrian and bicycle connector streets, the priority should be on safety and felt safety. This will reduce the kinds of dangerous crashes that have been common on high-pedestrian routes like North Pleasant north of the UMass campus. It will also encourage additional walking, biking and transit — a transportation mode shift.

In these roads, ways to balance tradeoffs might be:

• Prioritize streetlighting for safety and felt safety that will protect and encourage walking, biking, transit use, and other micromobility vehicles. Use streetlighting that meets safety standards for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders.
• Because lighting these routes will require consistent lighting along relatively long distances, use utility poles to mount lighting fixtures to save on costs. This will necessitate higher-mounted lights.
• To minimize unwanted lighting, use shielded lights that block upward lighting. As possible, use side-shielded lighting to limit sideways lighting into adjacent properties, and lower glare ratings, provided this avoids darkening curves or opposite-side sidewalks and shoulders. The town might provide resources or subsidies for trees or dark shades to block incoming light, especially for low-income residents.
• Use lights at the low end of the color spectrum for safety standards, i.e. close to 3000K.

On these streets the town policy still has its deepest inadequacies, has a high potential to be very dangerous, and has the greatest need for additional lighting to support a transportation mode shift. 

A number of streets stand out at present as having heavy nighttime pedestrian traffic, fairly high traffic speeds, and poor streetlighting. These include, for example, North Pleasant north of campus and East Hadley Road. These would be good candidates for initial investments and treatments—especially since East Hadley Road recently had a major sidewalk upgrade and North Pleasant is on the list to get one in the next few years.

• Other kinds of streets: Neighborhood through-streets, heavy pedestrian local streets, etc.

Other kinds of streets that might require a different set of options to work through tradeoffs might include neighborhood through-streets (e.g. Heatherstone Road) and heavy-pedestrian-use local streets (e.g. Fearing Street).

Conclusion: How You Can Help
Write to your town councilors and tell them you want a lighting solution that provides just as strong and specific standards for safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users — including people who will start walking, biking, and busing when they feel safe at night here — as it does for the night sky and people’s desire for darkness in their private property. And tell them tradeoffs among night skies, safety, and cost need to be decided by a public process that incorporates the aim of supporting a transportation mode shift.

And while you’re at it, urge them to urge town staff to finish the bicycle and pedestrian network map to help guide this process.

Councilors, take a few weeks, build on your existing work, and get this policy right.