Decorative Lighting

[Red Arrow]

I saw in the TW that the Blue Dome area is targeted for more acorn lights.

[patric]

I saw in the TW that the Blue Dome area is targeted for more acorn lights.

The city has tested the waters with much better lighting choices (Cherry Street, for example), so why are we still shopping at the AEP store?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Blue_Dome_merchants_propose_new_sidewalk_lighting/20130804_11_A15_Cityst664954

The Tulsa Development Authority administers those funds and approves their use based on recommendations from Blue Dome property owners.
The authority plans to consider the request this week.

"($850,000 in public funds) is a lot (of money), but I think it's really good forward thinking for us to try to get these," Coles told authority board members Thursday. "Just getting the foot traffic ... and continuing to chip away at the perception that it's dark and unsafe, it seems very reasonable."


So is anyone in the TDA approachable with regards to not participating in a grand waste of tax dollars, or at least providing better lighting for downtown?  

Clearly they must not have researched this beyond the salesman's pitch, because if they really want to "chip away at the perception that it's dark and unsafe" they need to abate the vision-robbing glare you get from Acorn lights.

[sgrizzle]

I believe the acorn lights are city, not AEP

[Red Arrow]

I believe the acorn lights are city, not AEP

I keep hearing about the abundance of natural gas around here.   Maybe we should replace all the electric acorn lights with gas powered lamps.  Now that would be quaint, and emit less glare to boot.

[TheArtist]

 Someone needs to get to one of the Blue Dome district meetings, and or Blake and McNellies group and present them with the better option and the logic behind it.  Then hopefully get their changed opinion to TDA. This can be fixed if someone takes the effort pronto.

[patric]

Someone needs to get to one of the Blue Dome district meetings, and or Blake and McNellies group and present them with the better option and the logic behind it.  Then hopefully get their changed opinion to TDA. This can be fixed if someone takes the effort pronto.

The Blue Dome folks have the right idea, but the wrong solution.
From what I gather from the Whirled article, BD already decided and is waiting for TDA to pony up the tax dollars.
Blue Dome would either need to modify their request, or the taxpayers need to register objections with TDA to block funding.

I sure hate to seem like Im against Blue Dome, but they really should have researched this.

[patric]

I believe the acorn lights are city, not AEP

I believe it was Jamie Jamison who told me that AEP dictated what Acorn fixtures he would be allowed to use at the Village at Central Park; maybe the policy has changed?

[patric]

The Tulsa Development Authority has approved the use of $850,000 in public funds to finish outfitting downtown's Blue Dome District with decorative streetlights.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Lights_for_Blue_Dome_District_approved_by_Tulsa_Development/20130809_11_A5_TeTlaD301757

The money, which would come from the Blue Dome Tax Increment Financing District, will fund 88 decorative "pedestrian lights" mostly between Elgin and Greenwood avenues and First and Third streets.

The Blue Dome TIF district, created in 2003 to stimulate development in a nine-block area, has about $1 million that can be spent on projects such as streetscaping.
That money comes from sales tax generated in the district.

The development authority administers the funds and approves their use based on recommendations from Blue Dome property owners.

Although the authority had asked the Blue Dome Merchants' Association to meet formally to approve the proposal, authority legal counsel Jot Hartley said Thursday that the group had enough evidence that property owners support the proposal.

The authority had received a letter of support from the association's president as well as a letter from association representative Michael Sager saying that property owners had been consulted, Hartley said.

The measure passed 4-0. Authority board member John Clayman abstained.

The pedestrian lights will be identical to those installed elsewhere the district, with acorn-shaped casings.


There's no mention of the letter I sent to the TDA opposing the expenditure of public funds on inefficient, wasteful fixtures (Acorns)
Since not even the District 4 Councilor was brought into the discussion until it was a done deal, the TDA "decision" seems more a theatrical formality.

Blake did ask that other fixtures be considered before the vote, but if they can ignore him I can see where they would have no problem doing the same for me.

If this only affected Blue Dome merchants, that would be one thing, but the tax money that will be squandered on this belongs to us all.

There are better choices.

[Townsend]

The Tulsa Development Authority has approved the use of $850,000 in public funds to finish outfitting downtown's Blue Dome District with decorative streetlights.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Lights_for_Blue_Dome_District_approved_by_Tulsa_Development/20130809_11_A5_TeTlaD301757

The money, which would come from the Blue Dome Tax Increment Financing District, will fund 88 decorative "pedestrian lights" mostly between Elgin and Greenwood avenues and First and Third streets.

The Blue Dome TIF district, created in 2003 to stimulate development in a nine-block area, has about $1 million that can be spent on projects such as streetscaping.
That money comes from sales tax generated in the district.

The development authority administers the funds and approves their use based on recommendations from Blue Dome property owners.

Although the authority had asked the Blue Dome Merchants' Association to meet formally to approve the proposal, authority legal counsel Jot Hartley said Thursday that the group had enough evidence that property owners support the proposal.

The authority had received a letter of support from the association's president as well as a letter from association representative Michael Sager saying that property owners had been consulted, Hartley said.

The measure passed 4-0. Authority board member John Clayman abstained.

The pedestrian lights will be identical to those installed elsewhere the district, with acorn-shaped casings.


There's no mention of the letter I sent to the TDA opposing the expenditure of public funds on inefficient, wasteful fixtures (Acorns)
Since not even the District 4 Councilor was brought into the discussion until it was a done deal, the TDA "decision" seems more a theatrical formality.

Blake did ask that other fixtures be considered before the vote, but if they can ignore him I can see where they would have no problem doing the same for me.

If this only affected Blue Dome merchants, that would be one thing, but the tax money that will be squandered on this belongs to us all.

There are better choices.

I see they used the term "decorative" not functional.

[patric]

I see they used the term "decorative" not functional.

Good catch.  There is already functional street lighting in the area, this decorative lighting will actually work against that because of the high glare component of Acorn lights.

A correspondence from a lighting engineer in Europe raises the same question:

The argument below is an argument for functional aspects and there is
already functional lighting. You not have to use functional arguments
for decorative lighting. Decorative lighting is not functional at all...

200 Watt HPS is also very high lamp. Belgium is seriously overlit and
there is told that our lighting levels are high but in that kind of
environment it is rare to find HPS lighting higher then 100 Watt...

Can someone tell me what the lighting levels are they try to achieve in
that kind of environments in the USA? Are they installing that lighting
much higher? What is the reason for so much light?

[TheArtist]

   Read a while back about another downtown that was spending millions ripping these glaring and horrid lights out after they finally got them all installed only to realize what a terrible mistake they had made.  Sad thing is, we won't even be that "enlightened".  The only glimmer of hope I can find in this fiasco, is the hope that some day we will be able to install some LED bulbs that have a lower and warmer light.  If I could change out the bulb in the one in front of my downtown shop I would in a heartbeat lol. Hmmm...

[patric]

  Read a while back about another downtown that was spending millions ripping these glaring and horrid lights out after they finally got them all installed only to realize what a terrible mistake they had made.  Sad thing is, we won't even be that "enlightened".  The only glimmer of hope I can find in this fiasco, is the hope that some day we will be able to install some LED bulbs that have a lower and warmer light.

There are several municipalities that discovered they got burned. This one was driven by a complaint by police:

Minneapolis streetlights are shining too brightly; Instead of leaving streets safer, ornamental lamps in 10 percent of the city are leaving police and residents temporarily blinded.(NEWS)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-156421436.html

The city of Minneapolis has installed thousands of ornamental acorn- or lantern-style streetlamps in the past 15 years to improve neighborhoods and reduce crime, but the new lights are overly bright and poorly designed, making it difficult for police officers to see through the glare. "They could have a suspect right in front of them, and they wouldn't see him," said Steven Orfield of Orfield Laboratories Inc. He tested the lights and found them to be thousands of times brighter than their surroundings, meaning they cast a disabling glare. The city was notified of the problem in 1999 but continued to install the lights. About 8,500 of them now cover 10 percent of the city. "It's more difficult to see with some of those lights," said Lt. Chris Hildreth of the Minneapolis police's 5th Precinct. Reports by two lighting consultants find that the glare is a problem not only for police but also for motorists and pedestrians, especially older citizens. A focus group said the glare actually made streets seem less safe and comfortable. The Minneapolis Department of Public Works sees the lights as part of an overall plan to increase safety and comfort in the city.

Now the city is looking at options, which include replacing the fixtures, pulling and replacing the whole streetlights, or doing nothing. "It was a boondoggle to begin with and a boondoggle now," said Prospect Park resident Michael Atherton, who opposed the lights when they were installed in his neighborhood in 1999. "I don't feel like paying for them a second time; I didn't want to pay the first time."

Besides glare, the lights waste electricity compared with the alternatives the city might have used, and that costs taxpayers money and needlessly creates greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Replacing the poorly designed fixtures, probably the most expensive option initially, "is the cheapest solution in the long run," Orfield says. Beverly Warmka of the Department of Public Works said that the reports are under review and that "at this time, we do not have any comments."

The problem with the lights is that they shoot light in every direction - up, down and sideways - including directly into one's eyes. It's the same effect as facing the bright lights of an oncoming car, except that the effect is continuous. Details disappear as the eye struggles to cope with the bright light. The lamps' low height and antique-like fixtures, which aren't meant for today's high-output light sources, compound matters. Lower light in these fixtures won't deliver enough illumination.

Former City Council Member Dan Niziolek sensed trouble eight years ago when he was a crime prevention specialist for the Minneapolis Police Department and contacted Orfield. But even after presenting the city with research and lab demonstrations, he was unable to convince Public Works or the City Council that the lights were a problem.

People have complained about the lights, including Council Member Sandy Colvin Roy. "I hate them as a driver," she said. "I find that they make it difficult to drive."

 If I could change out the bulb in the one in front of my downtown shop I would in a heartbeat lol. Hmmm...

"Light Trespass" in Tulsa is complaint-driven (relieving the city of the burden of thinking ahead) so you should file a complaint with the Mayors Action Center and ask that the light be fitted with some shielding to abate the trespass.

[patric]

A better plan:  High-mounted shielded lights do the job of lighting the area with minimal grare, while decorative lights are lower-intensity for ambiance.
(from the publication "American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, RP-8-00" by the Illuminating Engineering Society and the American National Standards Institute).