High Mast Pole Height & Spacing (Layout Guide)

This guide explains what determines pole height and spacing for high mast lighting—and what you must request to verify targets and uniformity defensibly.

Where This Guide Fits

Table of Contents

Why “spacing rules” are not universal

High mast spacing depends on optics distribution, aiming, mounting height, and target uniformity. Two products with the same wattage can produce completely different spacing results. That’s why IES/LDT + simulation is required for defensible layouts.

Inputs that control spacing (copy/paste)

Application (highway / yard / port / stadium):
Area geometry (road width or area dimensions):
Pole height target range (m):
Layout constraint (fixed spacing? fixed positions?):
Target illuminance (Avg lux):
Uniformity target (if specified):
Optics preference (Type III / IV / V / Not sure):
Glare/spill constraints:
CCT/CRI:
Environment (coastal/desert/humid):

Use the Project Input Sheet to avoid missing fields.

Practical layout rules (without pretending there is a universal spacing chart)

  • Start from targets and uniformity, not wattage.
  • Height and spacing trade off: higher poles can cover wider areas but may increase glare/spill if not controlled.
  • Optics type drives coverage: Type III/IV/V behave differently—verify with photometrics.
  • Glare/spill constraints can limit tilt and aiming angles, affecting spacing.
  • Always state assumptions (height, spacing, aiming, optics, depreciation factor if used).

Deliverables to request (IES/LDT + layout)

  • IES/LDT files for proposed luminaire/optic
  • Simulation outputs (Avg, Min, uniformity + calculation grid)
  • Layout proposal with assumptions clearly stated (height, spacing, aiming notes)
  • Glare/spill notes: shields/visors/tilt limits if required

See: Photometrics Center.

RFQ clauses (copy/paste)

  • Bids must include IES/LDT + simulation outputs (Avg, Min, uniformity + assumptions).
  • Spacing proposal must state pole height, spacing, layout, optics type, and any glare/spill constraints.
  • Wattage-only comparisons are non-compliant.

Next steps