'Enlightened' candidates on crime...

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

My street is in a really old part of town and it desperately needs lighting (we get a few malcontents lurking about, hiding under cars, etc). We would like something that is period friendly in form (circa 1909).

If the goal is to directly address crime, it's going to take a lot more than lights to make a difference.

Where streetlighting may help is where it is designed to improve vision to the point where natural surveillance is increased, i.e., moderate, glare-free lighting that promotes utilization, but is not patchy or so overwhelming that otherwise watchful neighbors have to install thick drapes.

Tulsa's streetlighting is designed for the convenience of the electric utility, rather than the ability to compliment human vision at night.  

The National Institute of Justice reported to Congress "We may speculate that lighting is effective in some places, ineffective in others, and counter productive in still other circumstances. The problematic relationship between lighting and crime increases when one considers that offenders need lighting to detect potential targets and low-risk situations (Fleming and Burrows 1986). Consider lighting at outside ATM machines, for example. An ATM user might feel safer when the ATM and its immediate surrounding area are well lit. However, this same lighting makes the patron more visible to passing offenders. Who the lighting serves is unclear."
http://www.ncjrs.org/works/wholedoc.htm

Some candidates for the upcoming elections have included streetlighting in their platforms (the implication is that there will be more), so it would be beneficial to us all if we took that opportunity to give some serious thought as to whether we should continue treating it as a money-intensive pacifier, or start investing in lighting for people instead of Big Power.  

Eliminating glare means eliminating waste, and that doesnt settle well with utilities who fear reduced sales.        

At the present, the most economical way to illuminate a roadway shared with pedestrian traffic is with flat-lensed (low glare) "Cobra" streetlights equipped with a 50-watt Sodium lamp, atop a 30' pole.  Closer to the city center, intensity is increased.
Keep in mind that streetlighting is mainly for pedestrians and that vehicles benefit more from well-maintained reflective lines, Raised Pavement Markers (RPM's), "cats eyes" or "Botts Dots" that catch headlight illumination (even in rainy weather, and require no electricity), but streetlights at intersections also serve to alert drivers to conflict points requiring greater attention.  

Cobras, unfortunately, dont look good in the daytime, prompting the more aesthetically minded to disregard nighttime performance for daytime appearance ("Dayform" in architectspeak).  That gives rise to the "Acorn" faux-antique light that must be installed at a ratio of three Acorns for each Cobra it replaces.  
Three times the fixtures to install, three times the electricity -- three times the light in your face (instead of on the street).
   
I like what the City of Atoka chose for antique-style streetlights in it's historic district.  They look like the Acorns but are designed differently to eliminate vision-robbing glare.
http://www.darksky.org/fixtures/posttopp.html
(Atoka uses the "Promenade Series" listed there.)

quote: Any idea who I would work with in the city to get started and any suggestions on fixtures?

PSO installs fixtures as ordered by the city Public Works department, who selects the type of fixture from an "Approved Fixture List".  
The approved list is recommended to Public Works from ... PSO, based on both the ability of a fixture to "load" it's distribution system during off-peak hours, and it's ability to place at least one full Foot-Candle of light on the pavement.

Thats more than twice the nationally recommended illumination for urban residential areas of 0.4 foot-candles (ANSI/IESNA RP-8-00, pp8), which is one reason why Tulsa's residential streets seem to vary so greatly between light-and-dark spots.

Rather than approaching Public Works about new streetlights, first ask you councilor to support an enabling ordinance that would break the "Approved Fixture List" logjam and allow (if not outright require) the newer, energy-efficient and low-glare streetlight designs for all new, publicly-funded installations.

To presently have a "policy' requiring that a streetlight burn a minimum of 100-Watts electricity to be considered "safe" is absurd, not within national standards, and a gregarious waste of tax dollars that could better be spent on police and fire protection.  

Tulsa's ordinances state:  "Energy-efficient street and security lighting shall be considered and installed, whenever and wherever economically feasible and appropriate.  Street and outdoor lighting wattage shall be reduced and lighting directed downward, whenever and wherever feasible and appropriate."  (Title 12 Ch. 102B).  
Please first ask you councilor to have Public Works comply with the law by bringing the "Approved" list up-to-date, before asking for more fixtures that weigh down the general fund.

If the DOJ cant give a firm answer on streetlights as a crime-fighting tool, I probably couldnt say one way or another either, but I can tell you that as a city, we wont benefit by installing more of the same wasteful junk we use now.  Reduced-wattage, low-glare streetlights are an inevitability, and further delaying their adoption is not only irresponsible but illegal.