To Light Or Not To Light? And how to give a sensible answer to the local councilor or upset neighbour.

Our Goal “It is the policy of the City of Ottawa to light park pathway systems where community and program needs require pathway usage at night time and pathway users can be assured of a reasonable expectation of safety.”

A bit of spatial context Over 1200 City parks (that we know of), 800 “active” plus many linear systems for off road ped / bike network ~ 20 new parks per year Geographic area greater than PEI, Toronto (but ~ 85% is rural) Suburban parks account for 70% of active park properties

Policy Context No former municipal lighting policy to identify need in a CPTED context. Lighting most often secondary to other municipal requirements (winter maintenance, beautification) Conflicting policy goals (i.e park closure by-law, access to public transit, program review and budget reduction)

Policy Context “upward” harmonization of standards between former municipal boundaries Over 80 requests for new lighting in 2 years after amalgamation No formal “Parks and Recreation” role in first 2 years High degree of conflict between COEs, TUPW, Community, Corporate Security – who is the client?

What do we accomplish? Improve the look, feel and character of a park Enhance the pedestrian environment Promote public opportunities for the use and enjoyment of City lands Communicate that the park and pathways are “open for business”

Lighting Requests Lighting program is reactive Open to all sources of request Community Policing Local Politician Staff / City Crews Single resident Local businesses

Evaluation Tools Ability to look at each situation from different perspectives (“Never look at a place the same way twice”) Means to balance various interests / priorities (i.e. security vs. feasibility) At times repetitive, but an effective way of communicating between lay man and engineer

Safety of Users CPTED audit performed. Records shared with Ottawa Police Service Main elements include site inspection for entrapment spots, alternative routes, witness potential, analysis of crime statistics CPTED basics still permeate throughout evaluation process

Analysis of Park Facilities Are there vulnerable elements in the park, what are they, and are they situated properly? In addition to a path, what else may be lit – and should it? Does relocation of vulnerable or problematic elements suggest a better solution?

Alternative Transportation Needs Parks are not usually islands. They often form part of a greater greenway corridor and offer better straight line access to destinations. Is path used to access transit, shopping and other major facilities? Is this part of community design, secondary or transportation plans?

Impact on Neighbours Will lighting intrude on neighbour privacy? Does the acceptance of night time activities impact our neighbour’s use and enjoyment of their property? “Dark Skies” activities Design standard for poles / fixtures / illumination levels

Impact on Park Environment CPTED 101 – Do not create a false sense of security. Do not introduce lights into a location where pedestrians can become trapped. Protect forests and wood lots, major land forms and other natural features from becoming a hazard or understand that they are a hazard and remove them.

Feasibility Access to Hydro service Cost benefit of lighting – how many people use this park at night? Will lighting save on vandalism or other “criminal” costs? Who will see the lights or the subject matter that is lit?

User Profile What is the destination of the anticipated pathway user? What time? What if lights are off at 11 pm? Is the pathway of acceptable standard to meet user needs (width, grade, surfacing)

Threat Analysis Reserved for those situations that clearly demonstrate criminal activity / problems. Lighting is only one part of an implemented security solution – cameras, target hardening measures, enforcement protocols also needed.

Design Standards Pedestrian scale Vandalism resistant Curvilinear Cut-off Lenses / Fixtures Goal to reach 5 LUX, 5:1 illumination ratio – reality of 10:1 and sometimes 20:1 Appropriate pathway design standard

Implementation Priorities Very simple decision making process High priority to those that satisfy all “tests” Mid priority to those that do not result in a negative CPTED evaluation (i.e. installing lights here would create a false sense of security) and meet most other tests.

Policy In Practice 3 projects totaling $120,000 in 2004 Timmerman, 4 poles, new transformer and kiosk, $30k Richard Ward, 7 poles, existing power supply, new kiosk, $40k Barrington, 11 poles, existing transformer and kiosk $48k 7 other projects done as part of overall construction activities

Contact Information Kevin Wherry, Senior Planner Ottawa Parks and Recreation 8th Floor West, 100 Constellation Cres. Ottawa, ON K2G 6J8 kevin.wherry@ottawa.ca Ph: (613) 580-2424 x24350