Expect people to push back on lower light intensity, localized lighting and motion sensors with passion. It doesn't even matter if you get a design that improves security (what motion lights usually do), people will go for the less secure one if there is more light.
That's something I have no idea how to solve.
I'm not sure if it can be used to help solve the problem, but I've seen that when places try reduced lighting, the people who live there love the result long-term and do not want to go back. I have family in Sedona, which places strong limits on almost all fixed outdoor lighting, and Boulder, which has removed street lighting in many areas, and those rules are overwhelmingly popular.
I took a lux meter down the footpath, it registered 75 lux holding it in my hand.
That's ridiculously bright for a footpath.
* Use light of lower intensity (candela) to put less illuminance (lux) on what's being illuminated. This is a more precise version of "use a dimmer light", because reducing output (lumens) won't necessarily do that if the light is more focused/directional.
* Illuminate fewer places. Street lighting for traffic safety doesn't need to be everywhere; it needs to be where hazards are.
* Use alternatives to general illumination. Some road hazards can be marked with reflectors or low-intensity marker lights pointed directly at drivers instead of overhead lighting.
* Turn off lights when not in use. Use timers. Use motion sensors. Use buttons pedestrians can press for crosswalks.
* Encourage people to use portable lighting rather than fixed lighting. This becomes more effective when there's less ambient light because less light is required to achieve the same contrast with a faraway background.