Urban light crusader

[OurTulsa]

Merry Christmas Patric,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/nyregion/thecity/17ligh.html?ex=1324011600&en=2660cde80e973289&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Tilting at Lampposts
Richard Perry/The New York Times
Susan Harder in her East Village apartment: "It seems like everything we do is fear-based."

Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Single Page Reprints Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By BEN GIBBERD
Published: December 17, 2006
Susan Harder, a former photo gallery owner who has lived for decades in the same walk-up apartment on East 10th Street, is the first to acknowledge that she is all of 57 years old, but she emanates an air of schoolgirlish mischief. Her blue eyes twinkle, her blond ponytail bounces, and she punctuates her sentences with what can only be described as giggles.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Richard Perry/The New York Times
BROADWAY NEAR FULTON STREET "It's Obi-Wan Kenobi's swords!" Ms. Harder says.
Nevertheless, unlike many schoolgirls, Ms. Harder is a woman with a mission.

The mission, which has absorbed her energies 40 hours a week for the past decade, is the fight against what is known by the somewhat anodyne term "light pollution" or, as Ms. Harder puts it with typical vigor, "our insane, just insane love of lighting absolutely everything up."

From streetlights to billboards to parking lots to private properties, she contends, in cities, suburbs and rural areas, the country is awash in excess light. This light, she claims, squanders money and energy, upsets the ecological balance, causes accidents, makes people sick and diminishes the beauty of the environment, both natural and man-made. The problem may be especially noticeable during the dark days of winter — Thursday is the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year — but in the eyes of crusaders like Ms. Harder, it exists year round.

"One day," she said on a recent evening, over dinner in a small restaurant on Second Avenue across the street from her apartment, "we'll look back at light pollution in the same way we do the recycling or ecology movements, and wonder how we ever could have thought otherwise. "I really do believe that," she continued, tapping the table of the restaurant decisively.

Ms. Harder's evolution as a crusader against light pollution began 20 years ago. It was then that St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery, which sits on 10th Street near Second Avenue directly across from her apartment, installed a series of "wall pack" fixtures around its exterior. Wall packs are those ubiquitous orange floodlights from which emanate as much as 1,000 watts of power; three of them shined directly up into Ms. Harder's apartment.

She eventually complained. Church officials responded by saying that they were merely trying to prevent assaults and robberies in the St. Mark's graveyard. Ms. Harder countered that no assaults or robberies were taking place in her bedroom, so why light it up?

Church officials finally agreed to tape over the top of the lights, and Ms. Harder went so far as to paint over her windowpanes and install triple-layer blackout curtains, but to little effect. "I mean, I was being tortured by it," she said. (Jimmy Fragosa, church sexton, confirmed that St. Mark's had modified the lights in response to her objections, adding, "We haven't had any more complaints.")

The following year, a second "light trespass" incident, as such events are technically known, took place outside the house in East Hampton that Ms. Harder owns with her partner, John Imperatore. A full-time fighter in the battle against light pollution was born.

"That's when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate," Ms. Harder said. "That's when I knew there was no escape wherever you were."

Since then, she has come a long way. She has plunged into the byzantine ways of Albany, where three times, unsuccessfully so far, she has lobbied for and contributed information to legislation that would control exterior lighting levels. (Ever hopeful, she plans to try again next year.)

She has delved into the arcane world of lumens, foot-candles and uniformity ratios. She has analyzed the pros and cons of high-pressure sodium bulbs versus metal halide ones, and become intimate with the properties of the semi cut-off luminaire — a luminaire is engineer-speak for a light — versus the full cut-off luminaire.

She eagerly spouts statistics on subjects like a possible link between prolonged exposure to artificial light at night and breast cancer (the correlation exists, she says, citing a 2005 article in the journal Cancer Research) or the connection between additional street lighting and decreases in crime (that connection doesn't exist, she says). Elected officials in the city and beyond have grown accustomed to her combination of sweet talk, cajoling and bullying.

In short, Ms. Harder has become a virtual one-woman dark-sky mover and shaker in a city and state that she describes as "way, way behind the curve" in their lighting policies. "The whole Czech Republic has a lighting law," she pointed out. "Lombardy has a lighting law. Malta has a lighting law. Long Island's done wonderful things. But there's something about New York."

With a jaundiced eye, she gazed at the small park across the street from the restaurant. "I mean, imagine what they'd make of that in Paris," Ms. Harder said. "But here some lighting designer just dropped down a few standard unshielded high-pressure sodium lights, and the result is a mess. A total mess."

Despite major victories on Long Island — the towns of Riverhead, Huntington, East Hampton and most recently Brookhaven have all implemented dark-sky legislation in the past three years, largely based on her suggestions — Ms. Harder has found New York a tougher nut to crack. This, she and others contend, is because the city's Department of Transportation, which oversees the installation of New York's streetlights, has regularly opposed dark-sky legislation introduced in Albany, citing safety issues.

"The real buzz saw we come up against repeatedly is the city," said Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island and who three times in the past four years has sponsored dark-sky legislation in Albany with State Senator Carl Marcellino, a Republican from Long Island. "They have a certain type of approach that theirs is the only way to deal with the issue and 'we're not going to change.' "

In response, Iris Weinshall, the transportation commissioner, said in a statement that the city was taking measures to reduce the wattage of its 180,000 streetlights. But Ms. Weinshall added: "Our streetlights are critical to keeping pedestrians, motorists and cyclists safe at night, and we'll continue to do our best to make sure that our streets are safe and well-lit." A department spokeswoman, Kay Sarlin, said the agency receives hundreds of requests a year for new streetlights "from residents concerned that their streets are too dark."

And Steven Galgano, executive director of engineering for the agency's Traffic Operations Division, described as "unacceptable" any of the new designs for street lighting he had seen from dark-sky advocates. Those designs, he added, were less bright and focused light more directly downward. The fixtures currently used by the department, he said, are only partly shielded and create a uniform blanket of light with no dark patches between the bright spots.

On a major urban highway, like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, he added, if motorists had to rapidly adjust their eyes as they move from bright area to dark areas, it could be dangerous. "But if anyone can show us a full cut-off luminaire that needs less energy and produces the same amount of light," Mr. Galgano said, "we'd be happy to look at it."

Nor is the Transportation Department the dark-sky movement's only adversary. Opposition also comes from some of the city's business improvement districts, as was apparent one evening a few weeks ago when Ms. Harder conducted a little tour of what she regards as some of the city's dark-sky trouble spots. At the wheel was her partner, Mr. Imperatore, a real estate developer and patient chauffeur.

The first stop was Midtown. "The whole area around Penn Station all the way to Grand Central is just insane," Ms. Harder said. "They put up all these drop-pendant double jobbers using metal halide. It's just sick."

The "double jobbers" were twin-headed 250-watt fixtures that emitted an intense blue-white light, and had been installed by the 34th Street Partnership, a business improvement district. These lights, combined with the lighting on storefronts and billboards in the district, many of them outfitted with 10 or more thousand-watt bulbs, produced a glow that seemed uncannily similar to daylight. People and objects were clearly visible, yet strangely indistinct. Depth of field seemed to disappear.

At Seventh Avenue and 36th Street, Ms. Harder pointed out three double-headed fixtures on one corner. "A cluster glare bomb!" she announced brightly.

Two blocks south, she noted a spot where 11 thousand-watt lights beneath a billboard did battle with a combined 500 watts of street lighting on the corner. Ms. Harder sighed. "I mean, which responsible human being would design lighting like this?" she said.

Farther downtown, she stopped to comment on what she saw as yet another troublesome area. Lining both sides of Broadway from Fulton Street to the Battery stood fixtures that resembled giant cigarettes placed on end.

"It's Obi-Wan Kenobi's swords!" Ms. Harder said with a giggle. "Seriously, lighting designers love this stuff. Their creed is 'Glare is Good.' And there's no light hitting the ground, see? It all hits these beautiful old buildings and washes them out. You can't see a thing."

Gently, Mr. Imperatore intervened. "Honey," he said, "I think it's time to head elsewhere." He turned south past City Hall, at which point Ms. Harder let out a squeal: "Ohh! O.K.! There's a great example of good lighting."

She pointed to a number of gaslights set in historical fixtures, flickering faintly yet clearly illuminating City Hall Park. "Those are sensitive," she said. "They do their job. They don't blind you, but you can see where you're going."

It's hard to imagine how dark the city was until well into the 19th century. The first public lighting company, the New York Gas Company, was sanctioned by the city in 1823 to light the streets south of Grand Street. Gaslight was dangerous, flickering and dirty, and most New Yorkers, with good reason, feared the night as a time of disorder. By 1880, crude electric arc lights were set up between 42nd and 53rd Streets along Broadway, the first avenue in the country to be so illuminated, later giving rise to the label "The Great White Way."

New inventions began arriving in a frenzy. In 1882, Thomas Edison opened the world's first electric generating station, on Pearl Street. The following year brought a new gas mantle with an incandescent burner that emitted a white light three times as bright as the old gaslights; it, too, would be vanquished by the march of electric lighting.

Lest one imagines this light was all for "serious" purposes, New Yorkers showed their true concerns early on: By the 1890s, Madison Square was home to a giant electric billboard advertising a Coney Island hotel, 80 feet by 50, consisting of 15,000 individual lights controlled by an operator, and another, 47 feet long, promoting Heinz pickles. In the 1880s, Lady Liberty's hand was so brightly illuminated by electric light that mariners complained and it was toned down. The city's romance with electric light was instant and all-consuming.

With all this in mind, the question arises: Are Ms. Harder and her colleagues merely tilting at windmills? Some public-minded people seem genuinely surprised by her views, among them Daniel Biederman, president of the 34th Street Partnership.

In the 1990s, when up to four times as many murders and robberies were reported in the city as now, Mr. Biederman's organization installed the "double-jobbers" that Ms. Harder found so offensive.

"Safety was our major goal when we began," Mr. Biederman said. "The area was incredibly dark, and crime was very high. We deliberately chose metal halide because it doesn't impart a sickly glow. The sodium vapor lights made people look as if they were ill."

Crime statistics over the years have borne out his assumptions, he said, with an overall decrease in street crime in the area since 1991 "of about 85 to 90 percent."

For Ms. Harder, such tactics are merely "overkill."

"It seems like everything we do is fear-based," she said. "Look, I don't want to switch off all the lights — this is New York City — but I am against excessive and wasteful lighting. You could cut back those wattages by 50 percent and it wouldn't make a difference."

In response, Mr. Biederman said he was not aware "of a single letter" from anyone requesting less light, but added that he would be happy to discuss ways to address the situation while still keeping things safe. "I'd be absolutely receptive to it," he said. "And I'd do it at some cost, too, if we felt it was right."

Given New York's early sweet tooth for electric advertisements, it's not surprising that bright ads and billboards continue to be a major part of the city's light pollution problem. Councilman Alan Gerson, whose district includes SoHo, NoHo and the Lower East Side, is drafting legislation to control certain flashing illuminated billboards, private security lights on roofs and other such "nuisance" lights.

"It's a growing problem," said Mr. Gerson, who hopes to introduce his legislation early next year and is optimistic about its chances. "Buildings are putting up intense lights on their facades and rooftops, for commercial or security reasons, and they forget it shines into people's windows."

Despite these and other obstacles, Ms. Harder remains an optimist.

"More and more advocacy groups are adopting lighting pollution as part of their collective agenda," she said. "The fact that the Sierra Club has taken on the issue, the fact that the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council both came out behind Grannis's legislation — this is fantastic."

[patric]

We compare notes from time-to-time.

She was disappointed that even though the NY Times writer interviewed a number of people with problems worse than hers and people (and organizations) working at least as hard as her on the issue, they chose to make her sound like a "lone" voice ... and that the NYC DOT and the BID are "doing their job" protecting NYC from people like her who want to "dim the lights".

They did not mention the name of the NY State Bill (The Healthy, Safe, and Energy Efficient Outdoor Lighting Act) and that it's really about the mis-direction of the light, not the dimming of light that is at issue.

The article did point out a number of popular misconceptions in some city official's thinking.

quote:Steven Galgano, executive director of engineering for the agency's Traffic Operations Division, described as "unacceptable" any of the new designs for street lighting he had seen. Those designs, he added, were less bright and focused light more directly downward. The fixtures currently used by the department, he said, are only partly shielded and create a uniform blanket of light with no dark patches between the bright spots.

If they did their homework, they would know that overdoing uniformity can make objects less discernible, and that some variations are necessary to create the contrast we need to identify things in the 3-D world.  Otherwise, it's like using a yellow marker to write on white paper -- works fine up close but that's about it.
(See "Lighting for Exterior Environments")
   
"The use of dropped lens fixtures will not produce better lighting.  By using properly designed flat glass luminaires the luminance (overall brightness) of the roadway will not be affected significantly.  What will be affected is the uniformity with flat glass luminaires being more sensitive to the maximum spacing (not as much beam pattern overlap). However, for this project the new Small Target Visibility method for the roadway lighting should be used.  With this design method high uniformity is not as important, in fact, non-uniform lighting has proven to be better for visibility by increasing the contrast.  In short, with flat glass luminaires, the result is lower uniformity, which provides better visibility"
"CALGARY ROADS REPORT TO THE S.P.C. ON FINANCE AND BUDGET, 2001 JULY 03"
http://members.rogers.com/michaeljcook/lightpollution/calgary1.pdf

quote:"But if anyone can show us a full cut-off luminaire that needs less energy and produces the same amount of light," Mr. Galgano said, "we'd be happy to look at it."

There's lot's of examples they're happy to not look at.  Heres One

Then there is their counterparts in Canada who are saving better than $2 million annually by not paying to light clouds.
http://calgary.rasc.ca/lp/commun_retro.html
http://content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Roads/Street+Lights/Envirosmart+Street+Light+Retrofit+Program.htm

quote:"Safety was our major goal when we began," Mr. Biederman said. "The area was incredibly dark, and crime was very high. We deliberately chose metal halide because it doesn't impart a sickly glow. The sodium vapor lights made people look as if they were ill."

Metal Halide lights are four times more likely to result in what's known as "Skyglow" because they are mostly blue, due to something called the Rayleigh Effect.  

quote:Crime statistics over the years have borne out his assumptions, he said, with an overall decrease in street crime in the area since 1991 "of about 85 to 90 percent."

The last statement speaks volumes as to their credibility.  If eliminating crime was really that easy, wouldnt we have made a lot more progress in the hundred-plus years of electric light?  Credible (i.e., not funded by utilities or lighting manufacturers) studies say otherwise.  



Oh, and Merry Christmas to you, too.
[]

[PonderInc]

Since Tulsa seems bent on putting up a bunch of Patric's "favorite" acorn lights all over town...what can be done to lessen the damage?  I hate the blinding white light that eminates from them.  It kills any sense of intimacy/romance/beauty that we normally associate with walking through a city at night.  (Not to mention the problem for older motorists who can't see...thanks to the non-shielded glare.)

If we have to have the acorns, what sort of bulbs would provide a warmer, less blinding light?

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

If we have to have the acorns, what sort of bulbs would provide a warmer, less blinding light?

Heres a thought -- if they are meant to be decorative fixtures, then why not relamp them with decorative intensities?

We want a homey 19th Century look but streets lit to 21st Century standards. Reproduction "Acorn" lights cant do both jobs because their optics and scale arent suitable for high intensity light.

One solution:  Delegate the task of street illumination to something more modern and efficient, and refit the Acorns with light sources more analogous to their historical counterparts.



The purpose of the Acorn then would be to add "sparkle" or detail to the street environment without trying to add brightness (human-scale lighting, see Lighting for Exterior Environments, RP-33-99 by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America).

Compact Fluorescent comes to mind to simulate the tamer intensities of early incandescent light, and wouldnt be so bright that you couldnt look right at the fixture.
They generally produce a much warmer color that the gray pallor you get from Metal Halide, and not orange-ish like Sodium.

In a Dual-lighting system where the predominant streetlighting is Sodium, the addition of Compact Fluorescents would also improve color rendering (Metal Halide is generally not preferred because it's lamp life is usually half that of Sodium, thus doubling maintenance costs).  

Sort of like having your cake and eating it too.  By separating beauty from function you might actually end up with something that works.

Another option would be to choose better antique-style streetlights, but Human-Scale lighting (i.e., short poles) is never the sole source of roadway illumination in proper streetlight designs.

Other ideas?

[TheArtist]

I like the thought of the decorative lighting. And at first liked the acorn lights, but when I started seeing them all over the place, TU, OU Tulsa, downtown and now on more and more other cities main streets, I think we should look to something different, and quickly before its too late.  I still like the idea of "old timey" or even modern decorative lighting, but we need to think this through.  If we continue using those same ol acorn lights we are just doing what every other town seems to be doing, so why not go one step up in style, and for people like Patric, use something more energy efficient and effective.  There are some beautiful lights out there that will fit the bill on both accounts.  Even the double acorn lights they are supposed to be using on Boston are at least more unique and beautiful, more fitting for Tulsa's downtown, than the same ol same ol acorn light every small town, park, college, etc. is using.  Its the current fad and when it gets old and over done, only those places  that chose to be more unique will not regret it. Just my prediction.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I still like the idea of "old timey" or even modern decorative lighting, but we need to think this through.

Im convinced we could do better with the right leadership on board.

This was published Dec. 24 and has a familar ring to it:


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.

By Karen Youso, Minneapolis Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/462/v-print/story/896615.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."

Minneapolis property owners pay for the lights through tax assessments. Some have already paid thousands of dollars to install the lights, which cost the city about $6,000 each.

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.

Problems and possible solutions

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."

Lighting standards

In 2002, the council slapped a moratorium on requests for the new lights because of citizen complaints. As a council member, Niziolek was able to force the issue. Before lifting the moratorium, the city would have to adopt a visibility performance standard into its street lighting policy. The lack of a standard, however, did not stop light installation. Ornamental streetlights continued to be installed -- some as recently as October, and sometimes the very style that consultants found problematic.

"Rather than making subtle or incremental changes, it made sense to get the big picture first before heading down an incorrect path," said Jon Wertjes, director of traffic and parking for the Public Works Department. The idea is to keep the status quo until all the pieces for a new lighting policy come together.

Meanwhile, the department will add diverters to block glare on an as-needed basis. The band or reflective liner helps, Hildreth said. But Orfield said diverters don't eliminate the glare and they're inefficient. The city winds up paying for light it's not getting. "It's a Band-Aid solution," he said. "They'd be better off with a well-designed lamp in the first place."

Alternative fixtures called "cut-off lights" are the consultants' suggestion. They illuminate the street and sidewalk -- keeping light out of the eyes -- and eliminate glare. And they save energy. In 2003, the Canadian city of Calgary, Alberta, converted all streetlights to cut-off lights. Now it saves more than $2 million a year in electrical costs and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 18,000 tons per year.

Technology exists for glare-free, efficient lighting that saves resources and will be a model for the nation, Orfield said. In general, the most effective lighting is a mix of low-level lighting for pedestrians and high-level for motorists, according to consultant Paul Lutkevich of Parsons Brinckerhoff in Boston.

Wertjes said he aims to have a policy with visibility standards in front of City Council next year so the moratorium can be lifted and the city move forward. The sticky part, he conceded, is what to do with the 8,500 lights already in.

"The city needs better lighting," Niziolek says. "It shouldn't have taken so long."

Karen Youso • 612-673-4407 • kyouso@startribune.com

[Chicken Little]

Great find, Patric!  This article could serve as a lesson for Tulsa.

Why do you think that Minneapolis has had a moratorium on acorn lights for two years without a good solution?  Has the problem grown too large?  Replacing 8,500 fixtures at $6,000 a piece is about $51,000,000.

My guess is that Tulsa has fewer than 100 of these acorn lights right now, which, in "light" of this article, seems like a good thing.

Here's a picture gallery from Autralia that graphically illustrates the efficiency of full-cutoff lighting, good vs. bad, etc.  Warning: some of the "bad" pics will actually give you a headache.

I think this issue could have traction because it is as much about cost efficiency as it is about better environments.  Once people realize that these acorn lights waste 80% of their light, then a whole host of other efficiency issues can crop up, like optimal spacing, dimmers, etc.

Personally, I think the idea of LED streetlights is interesting.  They aren't yet as efficient in terms of watts per lumen as the high and low-pressure sodium lights, but they are closing that gap.  They already last five times longer, which reduces maintenance.  But what really intrigues me is that they are built from arrays of color LEDs.  In theory, you wouldn't be limited to pure white anymore (or whatever that orangey color is from the sodium lights). You could toggle them via computer to produce any light in the spectrum.  Just think, mood lighting for the whole city!  Alternating red, white, and blue on the 4th, etc.

[Rowdy]

Ah that's why I like this forum.  Only here can you discuss light output in such detail and length...

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Rowdy

Ah that's why I like this forum.  Only here can you discuss light output in such detail and length...

Funny, I thought we were talking about money.[]

[PonderInc]

I agree: Tulsa is currently plotting a course towards ruining a lot of historic areas with acorn lights and their retina-burning white light. And we need to stop it now...before we've invested too much in this mistaken technology.

I'm glad to see that others are beginning to understand why they're so bad.  And it was nice to see Michael Bates commenting on this issue in a recent column.  

I think TulsaNow has the ability to help educate the leadership, and organize some sort of effort to affect change.

I've been thinking about a strategy for Tulsa to address this issue.  One thought I have is to talk to some local opthamologists / optrometrists, and get them on record with their professional opinions of how bad these lights are for people...especially the elderly, and how it's a safety issue.  I haven't done anything about this yet, but I'd love to get a formal statement...perhaps from a local association of eye doctors to present to the city of Tulsa and Maria Barnes.

I also spoke informally with the guy who orders the light fixtures/bulbs for the parks department.  He said that he'd never heard any complaints about the acorns...but was open to considering different bulbs.  Again, haven't followed up yet.

I think the best way to convince people is to take them on a night time tour of town.  Drive around and show good and bad lighting.  The only problem is getting the decision-makers out at night.  Would it be possible to capture the difference on video?  That would be easier to deseminate.

I have done some research on fully shielded historic-looking light fixtures...and haven't come up with much.  Most of the really good shielded light fixtures are modern/sleek...which I like, but I understand the desire to put older looking fixtures in historic areas.  I think the ideal solution would be a fully shielded light fixture inspired by art deco style to compliment our downtown architecture and history.  (Instead of the Victorian gaslamp motif.)  Sadly, the acorns are cheap, readily available, and durable.  And it would be expensive to have light fixtures custom designed and built just for a few neighborhoods in Tulsa.

[TheArtist]

"He said he had never heard any complaints about the acorns.."

Its likely that the general public never really think about the lights and their effect.  They probably see them and see that old world look and simply think, my those are nice, I like those, and then scurry on by without more thought.  

But if your like us, who are concerned that things are the best they can be for our city and thus pay attention to what is going on a bit more, we see, hear, and notice what others may not.  We take the time to compare these lights with what other cities are doing and whether it works and if there are better options.  

Sometimes people simply don't get why they like one street over another and just go for what seems to be the right choice.  Trust me I work with people and decorators on a daily basis, many times people buy things thinking they will work in a room but then end up with a room that "isnt like what they see in the magazines and tv" and don't know what they are doing wrong.   Its the same thing with those acorn lights.  They seem to be the obvious choice, but in the end, something is just not going to be right.

Keep on keepin on Patric, I think you are getting somewhere.

[patric]

If I hadnt seen a Tulsa-sized city that actually knew how to light their streets better, this would all be just a pipe dream.

Cities like Tucson spend a fraction of what we do, and end up doing a better job of it because they do it with so little waste.  Even the police were skeptical that burning less watts could mean better visibility if done right, but now they're one of the stronger supporters of low-glare streetlighting.

It wasn't enough to learn the mechanics of their secret to success, though.  I would soon discover our biggest barrier to better city lighting was not so much technical but political.

When 70 cents of every dollar you invest maintaining an Acorn streetlight never ends up as useful streetlighting, it's a huge waste of tax money.  But unlike the wayward illumination, the money to produce that waste doesnt just disappear into space but rather changes hands.
 
And that's where most of our problem lies.

You can only tell people "you're the only one complaining" for so long until they get wise and start comparing notes.
...or posting to a community message board, or blogging about it.

Properly lighting our streets requires a bit of homework, but it isnt rocket science.  Those making the decisions already have that  information, but most havent acted upon it to any great degree.

Unshielded Acorns are now already effectively banned in new PUD's, where the developer is required to demonstrate that lighting wont intrude on neighbors or compromise traffic safety, and the city does enforce a zoning ordinance prohibiting commercial lighting from trespassing into residential districts (but only after a complaint).

The technical details, however, are minuscule compared to changing the Status Quo, because the balance of change (or not changing) leans more in the favor of the powerful few than those who's illuminated thinking may shine on a better future for the city.

Maybe spending a few days in a place like Tucson would be an eye opener for some of our elected folks -- not so much while they are there but certainly the shock of coming back...

...and we can have them pick up a police chief while they're out.

[]

[PonderInc]

I posted these pictures in a different thread which had veered off onto the topic of lighting.  But since this thread is actually about lighting, I thought it made sense to include them here.  Sorry for the redundancy!

What DTU thinks is a "historic" light (ouch! my eye!)... and what historic lights actually look like



Shielded lighting at Hilcrest (ahhh)... and glare-lovers delight at TU


(The round light in the Hilcrest photo above is the moon.)

[patric]

Just so everyone knows, a recent Tulsa World article links to this thread.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=15&articleID=20080903_53_E4_hCriti410271

...and we're still installing "Acorn" lights as if electricity were getting cheaper...

You probably remember Tulsa's energy report showing the money the city spends on streetlighting doubled between 2003 and 2006 (after we started installing Acorns).
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/mayor/documents/CityofTulsaEnergyConservationandEfficiencyPlan.pdf  Would be interesting to see what the figures are now.

[AVERAGE JOE]

Patric, I logged on to the forum tonight specifically to tell you congrats on getting this cause written up in the paper. I think the article was informative and your quotes were insightful. Nice work!