MEMORANDUM. Recommended Action Receive Commission input on approach, pole design options, and proposed next steps.

Transcription

1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Tom Harmer, Town Manager Isaac Brownman, Public Works Director DATE: January 17, 2018 SUBJECT: Underground Project: Street Lighting Update Recommended Action Receive Commission input on approach, pole design options, and proposed next steps. Background In November of 2105 and March of 2016 respectively, the Town of Longboat Key voters approved assessing themselves to accommodate undergrounding of all above ground electricity and communications throughout Gulf of Mexico Drive (GMD) and Neighborhood areas. Assessment methodology Resolutions for the Undergrounding Projects were subsequently adopted by the Town Commission. The undergrounding project contemplated the installation of new, smart-cell and communication network compatible street lighting as part of the overall project. At the December 11, 2017, Regular Workshop, the Town Commission heard a presentation from Magellan Advisors regarding build out options, build out models, and potential uses for the fiber network. As part of the fiber network build-out, integration with a Town owned and maintained street light system is essential to provide an infrastructure opportunity to host small cell distribution networks. Goals of a new street lighting system should include: Enhanced Roadway and Multi Modal Pathway (sidewalk) illumination Provide Uniform Style and Pole Spacing Town-wide Adaptable to Smart Cell and future distribution network Technology Town maintain Street Light infrastructure The Town currently has 352-street lights in FPL inventory, of which 162 are on Gulf of Mexico Drive (GMD). The Town currently receives reimbursement from FDOT in the amount of approximately $40,000 annually to maintain the lighting on GMD. The Town anticipates continuing to receive this reimbursement for GMD lighting, though the amount is unknown at this time. The Town s annual payment to FPL is approximately $48,000 and includes repair, maintenance and energy costs. The Town s current street lights are sporadically placed, have inconsistent styles and illumination, are outdated, less energy efficient than current lighting options, and require FPL consensus for adding any additional network distribution systems.

2 Street lights on GMD are spaced anywhere between 300 and 700 feet apart with a variety of outdated fixtures. Neighborhoods street lights, where installed, are spaced 300 to 500 feet apart also with outdated fixture types. A number of fixtures throughout the Town are shielded to provide turtle friendly lighting. Street Lighting Report There are many options for roadway street lighting on today s market. For this discussion, these are grouped into three categories: Standard cobra-heads, Modern style, and Traditional/ Decorative. All fixtures for consideration will be Light Emitting Diode (LED), energy efficient and long life. Standard fixtures are considered cobra-type heads, which are used in many highway lighting applications, including what is existing throughout the Town. Modern fixtures have an array of styles and poles, but for the Town discussion we will focus on a basic flat-faced LED fixture head. Decorative/Traditional poles and fixtures have an aesthetic component as described in the name while still producing energy efficient lighting. All options would ensure future communication network compatibility. For turtle friendly applications, newer fixture light levels can be lowered (dimmed), colored with an amber tone/hue, or shielded. Technical Details To achieve FDOT standards based on January 2016 Design Manual lighting level standards on GMD, an average illumination of 1-foot-candle (fc) would need to be achieved along the full length of GMD. This would result in a street light pole spacing, depending on the section of GMD roadway pavement width, of approximately 90 to 150-feet for the modern-flat fixtures and approximately 60 to 115-feet for traditional/decorative fixtures. All would be mounted around 25-feet above and to the outer limits of the right of way to include illumination of the multiuse path. The modern-flat fixture can achieve up to the 150-foot spacing and still be within the project budget. This 150 foot spacing would result in 450+ poles in GMD rightof-way alone. It is recognized it may not be desired by the Town s residents to have poles spaced at 60, 90, 115-foot nor even 150-foot intervals, respectively, along the full length of GMD right-of-way; therefore, the Town and our consultant are working with FDOT to determine if a waiver can be granted along GMD to allow flexibility in street light pole spacing. Our initial discussions with FDOT indicate that the 1-fc average must be met on GMD and may not be waived. In addition, a veiling luminance ratio parameter will need to be discussed as part of a waiver request as well. One option available is to place FDOT standard street light illumination at key focus 2

3 areas (at/near major intersections) and leave the remainder of GMD unlit (dark). These discussions with FDOT will continue. (One important note: the decorative poles at 115-foot spacing along the full length of GMD do not fit within the Town budget, but may be accommodated if applied in specific, discrete locations as described above) For the purposes of cost analysis, a Halophane Traditional/Decorative Fixture (BERN) and a Modern Flat Fixture (AUTOBAHN ATB-2) were compared. On an individual pole basis, the decorative style was approximately 25% more expensive than the modern-flat fixture. Because of the nature of a decorative fixture having a downward projecting shield as part of the aesthetic, these fixtures do not light the roadway to the degree the modern style flat fixtures do, which is why additional poles are required to accomplish similar light levels on GMD. Within the Neighborhoods, the intent is to replace like locations with new poles and fixtures to the same style and design to be selected for GMD. Both the Modern- Flat and Decorative fixtures can be placed at Neighborhood intervals within the project budget using current estimated costs. Network Communication Technology Report In addition to the lighting aspect of the street lights, there is an opportunity to ensure the new lighting system is fiber-optic and small cell and network communication compatible. This can be accomplished through the use of the following: 1. Integrated street light poles, which have the small cell components built into a wider diameter, upper portion of the light poles 2. Attachments using smaller, more contained designs 3. Stand-alone antennae poles for intermediate coverage areas (as needed) for private areas such as Bay Isles. An example distributed antennae system (DAS) network could have spacing requirements typically around 1,000-feet apart. Therefore the spacing required for the DAS network may be greater than the street pole lighting standards. The poles and fixtures proposed with the project will be fiber-optic compatible and will handle communication network and smart-cell technology either with an integrated pole system, or with a series of small scale attachments. If an integral pole system is selected the number and distribution of those poles will be determined as part of the overall coverage needed. Important information to note: Typically, no more than one-to-two communications providers can be supported on an integrated pole. 3

4 The more communications providers supported on an integrated pole, the larger the upper diameter portion of the pole, and also the taller pole may need to be to accommodate the additional provider. For pole attachments, the more providers attaching devices to a single pole, the more cumbersome the pole may look and also yield more ground-level street furniture around a single location. This can be managed by limiting one communications provider attachment per street light pole (no colocation). Next steps include: 1. Continue to explore waiver option with the FDOT. 2. Finalize a pole configuration to address recommended illumination and small cell coverage requirements. 3. Continue to work with small cell providers or available coverage options and funding mechanisms. As part of the update, the staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding the approach and next steps; and is requesting feedback from the Commission on the pole design options. Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation 4

5 UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT UPDATE STREET LIGHTING Regular Workshop January 22,

6 UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT UPDATE STREET LIGHTING Agenda Background Current Conditions Street Light Options Smart Cell Resolution Intent/ Project Goals Town wide Street Lighting Design Elements/Budget/Recommendation Design Elements/Recommendation 2

7 STREET LIGHTING Background Referendum Intent GMD and Neighborhoods, respectively: and installation of street lighting relating to Gulf of Mexico Drive, in certain neighborhoods including street light installation 3

8 STREET LIGHTING Background Basic Project Goals: Enhanced Roadway and Multi Use Trail Illumination Uniform Style and Spacing Adaptable to Smart Cell Technology Own and Maintain 4

9 Current Street Light Conditions: STREET LIGHTING Background Owned and Maintained by FPL All costs inclusive in monthly invoicing (Avg. $4000/mo. $48k annually) Exception are Town Decorative Street lights at intersections (energy use included in Town account) Town coordination with Marine Turtle Patrol Historical reduction in certain Lighting levels on GMD in FDOT Right of Way Town upgraded 49 of 162 lights to Shielded in 2013 (cost $20,100) FDOT Annual Reimbursement for GMD Lighting Reimbursement amount: $ ea. x 162 lights = $40, Private Properties request service and pay for their own 5

10 STREET LIGHTING Background Current Street Light Conditions: Design and Technical Sporadically placed, not uniform spacing Differ in manufacturer, wattage, diffuser, and lumens Aesthetically different Outdated, not current technology or energy efficient Town owned decorative lamps on GMD side street intersections Many lights shielded or turned off for turtle compliance (GMD and Gulf front Neighborhoods) Commercial / Private properties not part of the Town maintained lights 6

11 STREET LIGHTING FPL Account Inventory 352 EXISTING LIGHTS TOWN S FPL ACCOUNT INVENTORY 162 GMD 190 Neighborhoods 7

12 STREET LIGHTING FPL Account Inventory Legend: Orange (FPL), Blue (Town decorative) 8

13 1250 FEET Between Intersections STREET LIGHTING FPL Account Inventory Neighborhood Spacing varies 300 TO 500 FEET (Or More) Ex. GMD Spacing 300 TO 400 FEET Existing street lights on GMD are spaced 300 to 700 apart and 300 to 500 in neighborhoods 9

14 STREET LIGHTING EXISTING FIXTURE TYPES 10

15 Existing Lighting GMD COBRA Cut Off COBRA Drop Lens Attached to a mixture of concrete and wood poles of varying shape, size, and spacing 11

16 Existing Lighting GMD COBRA HEAD WITH SHIELD SHORT ARM COBRA HEAD WITH SHIELD LONG ARM (and private floodlight) Highway and private floodlights 12

17 Cobra Cut off w/shield Town Account EXISTING LIGHTING Private Street ALONG GMD light midspan tap Private Account Street light Existing Lighting GMD 13

18 UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT UPDATE STREET LIGHTING COBRA HEAD WITH SHIELD Town Owned and Operated Decorative with Street Sign 25 foot Typ. Existing Lighting GMD 14

19 Existing Lighting GMD TOWN DECORATIVE LAMPS 15

20 EXISTING STREET LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS High Pressure Sodium Lights sporadically placed with large distances between poles (300 to 700 ). Road is actually less illuminated due to shields on many fixtures. An average roadway illumination can be calculated at a low 0.08 foot candles Much of the roadway has no direct illumination (0.00 fc) 16

21 450 TO 700 Spacing EXISTING GMD STREET LIGHT PHOTOMETRICS 17

22 EXISTING STREET LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS NOTE: LIGHT FALLS AWAY AS DISTANCE INCREASES 0.2 FC 0.5 FC 1.0 FC Gulf of Mexico Drive 18

23 EXISTING STREET LIGHTING NIGHT PHOTO Zoom In (next slide) Cobra Cut off w/shield Town Decorative street Light GMD at General Harris/Lyons Lane (looking north) 19

24 EXISTING STREET LIGHTING NIGHT PHOTO Cobra Cut off without/shield Cobra Cut off w/shield GMD at General Harris/Lyons Lane (looking north) 20

25 EXISTING STREET LIGHTING NEIGHBORHOODS No shield Cobraheads plus Standard Open Bottom Street Light With shield 21

26 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD STREET LIGHTING NIGHT PHOTO Cobra Cut off w/shield Cobra Cut off w/shield Example, Gulfside Road 22

27 STREET LIGHTING OPTIONS 23

28 Project Goal Specifics Improve Aesthetics Modern or Decorative Style Sustainable, Reliable Poles and Fixtures with Long Life, Low Maintenance, Energy Efficient LED Uniform Style and Spacing, lighting and communications Standardized lighting levels for pedestrians and vehicles May cause heartache to residents desiring individual light levels Enhance Existing Light Locations (GMD/NH). Add Select New Locations (GMD) Illumination meeting FDOT Standards or pursue waiver (GMD) Turtle Friendly Lights capable of switching to a lower light level or FWC approved alternate color during turtle nesting season (or shielding) Compatible with proposed fiber optics and smart cell Town own and maintain 24

29 FIXTURE AND POLE OPTIONS STREET LIGHTING Standard Cobra heads Basic Modern Flat Fixture Style Traditional Decorative Style 25

30 Examples: STREET LIGHTING FIXTURE OPTIONS FLAT LED - ATB2 AUTOBAHN DECORATIVE LED - BERN 26

31 Technology within the fixture housing (Current Technology) 27

32 Modern Style Flat Fixture LED Amber lights can be utilized in turtle sensitive zones. Poles have ability to have adaptive smart technology affixed as needed. Spacing used in cost methodology estimates assume an approximate 150-ft average separation. Extension arms can be utilized as necessary to help address FDOT requirements. 28

33 STREET LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS Illumination Graphic (foot-candles, fc) foot right of way 29

34 STREET LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS Illumination Graphic (foot-candles, fc) * Fixture with arm extension * Light levels shift horizontal where needed foot right of way 30

35 HIGH EFFICIENT LED (2-LANE SECTION ONLY) DOES NOT MEET FDOT VEILING LUMINANCE STREET LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS 31

36 STREET LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS LINES REPRESENT 1.0, 0.5, AND 0.2 FC 32

37 GULF OF MEXICO DRIVE HIGHWAY STYLE STREET LIGHTING ATB2 ON 25 ROUND TAPERED ALUMINUM POLE W/ BREAKAWAY BASE AND 1 FT ARM. BLACK POLES ~ 425 CONSTRUCTION COSTS $3.43 M INCIDENTAL COSTS $0.67 M Design Estimate Example ATB2 AUTOBAHN Constr. cost per Pole = $8,065 at Spacing GMD TOTAL $4.1mil Within Estimated Project Budget FDOT Foot-Candle Illumination Criteria GMD x FDOT Veiling Luminance Criteria GMD Modern Style Flat Fixture LED 33

38 GULF OF MEXICO DRIVE DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTING Amber lights can be utilized in turtle sensitive zones. Lights have ability to have adaptive smart technology affixed to poles as needed. Spacing required to achieve min. FDOT photometric standard of 1 fc avg. = up to max. 115-ft. on 2-lane section (not achievable on other sections) DECORATIVE LED However, project budget does not support 115-ft. decorative pole spacing (cost per pole higher). 34

39 GULF OF MEXICO DRIVE DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTING Illumination Graphic (foot-candles, fc) foot right of way 35

40 GULF OF MEXICO DRIVE DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE LED HOLOPHANE BERN LED ON 25 CHARLESTON AL POLE W/ SITELINK SHAFT AND 6 FT BOSTON HARBOR ARM. BLACK POLES: AT UP TO 115 SPACING 550+ AT 155 SPACING 340+ Ex. Decorative Bern Constr. cost per Pole = $10,050 at Spacing GMD TOTAL $5.5mil x Within Estimated Project Budget FDOT Foot-Candle Illumination Criteria GMD (2-lane) x FDOT Veiling Luminance Criteria GMD at 155 Spacing GMD TOTAL $4.1mil Within Estimated Project Budget x FDOT Foot-Candle Illumination Criteria GMD (2-lane) x FDOT Veiling Luminance Criteria GMD 36

41 GULF OF MEXICO DRIVE STREET LIGHTING Option 1 Option 2 Modern Flat Fixture & Pole $8,065 per pole construction GMD BUDGET GOAL: $4.1 mil spacing (~ 425 lights) Spacing generally meets FDOT Illumination Standard Challenge w/ FDOT Veiling Luminance add Height/Arms Decorative Fixture & Pole $10,050 per pole construction GMD BUDGET GOAL: $4.1 mil 155 average spacing (~ 342 lights) Spacing does not meet FDOT Illumination Standard Initial discussions with FDOT: Waiver to lower illumination standard in lighted areas may not be granted. However, will consider discrete illuminated areas (intersections) with other areas remaining unlit (dark) 37

42 NEIGHBORHOOD STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE BERN COST PER POLE $10,050 TOTAL $1,909,500 Qty. = 190 ATB2 AUTOBAHN COST PER POLE $8,065 TOTAL $1,532,350 Qty. = 190 NEIGHBORHOOD LIGHTING $2,225,128 million budget Exact Location Replacement can be accommodated for both pole types 38

43 DISCUSSION / FEEDBACK FOR STREET LIGHTING If FDOT maintains position that a waiver will not be considered that allows for longer pole spacing, would Town Commission consider the use street lighting meeting the FDOT standard in specific, discrete areas with the remainder of GMD unlit (dark)? If so, are there stylistic preferences: Basic Modern vs. Decorative.other? Other comments at this time Town staff will continue to negotiate with FDOT to determine allowable options on GMD. 39

44 SMART CELL AND FIBER COMPATIBLE STREET LIGHT OPTIONS Goals: Communication network and fiber compatible Aesthetic opportunities with either standard or decorative poles Longer, less frequent spacing Various compatible smart cell devices are available: Integrated street light poles and/or stand alone poles for antennas (Bay Isles) Stream lined, more concealed smart cell housing attachments stored in a cylinder attached on the back, side or top of the pole 40

45 STREET LIGHT OPTIONS - SMALL-CELL ATTACHMENTS (Avoid - Not Desired) 41

46 Integrated Antenna / Pole Examples 42

47 Streamlined Small-Cell Attachments (Current Technology) 43

48 SMALL CELL POLE ATTACHMENTS Streamlined Small-Cell Attachments (Current Technology) 44

49 DISTRIBUTED ANTENNAE SYSTEMS (DAS) FOR SMALL CELL DEPLOYMENT POTENTIAL ANTENAE NODE SPACING IN NEIGHBORHOODS 45

50 Nodes are typically 1000 feet apart Potential Node locations for fiber backed DAS Cell Antennas Fiber backed Hub for DAS Cell Antennas 46

51 EXISTING STREET LIGHTING IN PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOODS 47

52 POTENTIAL DAS ANTENAE STAND ALONE POLES IN NEIGHBORHOODS 48

53 Next Steps for Staff 1. Continue to explore waiver option with FDOT 2. Finalize a pole configuration to address illumination and small cell coverage requirements 3. Continue to work with small cell providers on available coverage options and funding mechanisms Commission Discussion - Questions of Approach - Feedback on Pole Design Options - Next Steps 49

54 End of Agenda Item