RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting

[PonderInc]

Title revised, read thread for explanation
Well, I appreciate everything that the Kaiser folks have done/donated for the river.  But who picked out the light fixtures for the improved trail?  

These same fixtures were installed on the west bank some years ago.  I used to walk over there at night all the time, and finally started wearing a ball cap because the glare was so bright it was uncomfortable and affected my ability to see my surroundings. (Same old story about fixtures that direct the light sideways into your eyeballs instead of down, so you could see.)

I had hoped that the new trail improvements would include smart lighting that would solve the glare problem along Riverside Drive (for drivers and pedestrians alike). It appears that the new fixtures will only compound the existing problem...and extend it for many miles--and years--to come.  Great.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Well, I appreciate everything that the Kaiser folks have done/donated for the river.  But who picked out the light fixtures for the improved trail?  

These same fixtures were installed on the west bank some years ago.  I used to walk over there at night all the time, and finally started wearing a ball cap because the glare was so bright it was uncomfortable and affected my ability to see my surroundings. (Same old story about fixtures that direct the light sideways into your eyeballs instead of down, so you could see.)

I had hoped that the new trail improvements would include smart lighting that would solve the glare problem along Riverside Drive (for drivers and pedestrians alike). It appears that the new fixtures will only compound the existing problem...and extend it for many miles--and years--to come.  Great.

That's too bad.  I don't like the acorn lights downtown.  Also, there is light mounted on the side of a building at 17th and Boston that's blinding.

[patric]

Historically, how has the city chosen municipal lighting?
It leases those lights from AEP, who maintains an inventory of "approved" fixtures.

The "approved" fixtures list comes from the Public Works Department, and having no competent lighting engineers of their own, rely on who they consider "experts" to help them decide what lights go on the "approved" list.

Now, guess who the "experts" are that give Public Works those helpful suggestions?

Catch-22


This is why we need an enabling ordinance that calls for any new or replacement municipal outdoor lightig to meet performance goals for efficiency and improving human vision.  Texas has been doing this for years, as have the DOT's of a number of states.

If our street lighting system were designed for our vision rather than provide off-peak subsidies for the power company, we would have better lit streets for less money.

Remember the city report that showed our energy spending for streetlights DOUBLED from 2003-2005?  Could this be an issue we should be quizzing our City Council candidates about?


http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5575
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=626

[sgrizzle]

As mentioned by someone else on another post on this topic, the lights appeared to be full cutoff. The light source seems completely stuff up into the shade.

[PonderInc]

I noticed them the other day, so I haven't seen them on at night.  Unless I'm looking at some OLD fixtures next to the new trail, they look just like the ones that were installed on the west bank.  (Not ideal.)

Perhaps I am mis-using the term "full-cutoff."  To me, this implies that all light is directed downward, not sideways or up.  Since the fixtures I noticed sit atop a pole and have glass sides with a cap, I think that the light can't really be directed straight down.  

On the west bank, you see these lights, and the result is a giant circular shadow directly beneath the fixture (b/c of the pole) with light shining horizontally into your eyes, and no ability to see into the surrounding area.

The one's I'm describing look sort of like this (but not quite as fancy).

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

As mentioned by someone else on another post on this topic, the lights appeared to be full cutoff. The light source seems completely stuff up into the shade.

That was me... and I went out and took pictures of the lights in question.
I still believe that they're going to be wonderful.  Granted, they're not LED, but it seems like they're going to actually reduce the glare along the trails.  I think they're a great improvement to what's been there.

Here they are:
 




And let's be honest, nothing is as bad as what TU (and the City of Tulsa) have done...
 

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I noticed them the other day, so I haven't seen them on at night.  Unless I'm looking at some OLD fixtures next to the new trail, they look just like the ones that were installed on the west bank.  (Not ideal.)

Perhaps I am mis-using the term "full-cutoff."  To me, this implies that all light is directed downward, not sideways or up.  Since the fixtures I noticed sit atop a pole and have glass sides with a cap, I think that the light can't really be directed straight down.  

On the west bank, you see these lights, and the result is a giant circular shadow directly beneath the fixture (b/c of the pole) with light shining horizontally into your eyes, and no ability to see into the surrounding area.

The one's I'm describing look sort of like this (but not quite as fancy).

Yeah, you're looking at the wrong fixtures.

[patric]

These do appear to be Full-Cutoff:


Keep in mind that half of the advantage of Full Cutoff is directing the light where it's needed (instead of in your face or space).  The other half is realizing that, since light at useless angles doesnt need to be generated in the first place, a lower wattage can be used since the fixture is more efficient.

If AEP is trying to use the same 100-watt HPS lamps in high-efficiency fixtures that they use in the low-efficiency "barn lights" we have on residential street corners, the effect will be intense pools of light surrounded by intense areas of darkness.  (Remember when the eye adapts to the brightest objects everything else appears darker)  

So yes, you can screw up a Full-Cutoff installation if you try hard enough.  Since Full-cutoff is so much more efficient, you NEED to reduce wattages or you have a mess.   Ill try to get some nighttime photos.

[patric]

A handout on "What Is Full Cutoff"

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/whatis_FCO.gif

...and how they can be used for eye-friendly lighting design:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/kennebunkport_formula.gif

(Right-click to save to your computer)

[PonderInc]

OK, thank goodness, and I stand corrected!

Thank you so much for the clarifying photos.  I saw the fixtures while driving down Riverside the other day...guess I need to slow down and take more notice of my surroundings!  

I saw the caps on the fixtures and immediately assumed they were the same as the crappy ones on the west bank.  My bad. I'll look more closely before spouting off next time.  (I used to walk on the river every day.  Now that I'm out in the "burbs" at 41st and Harvard, I don't get down there as often as I like.  Driving by is no substitute!)

By the way: I have never been so happy to be wrong!

Could I rename this thread?  "River Trail Improvements Include LOVELY Lighting!"  Way to go Kaiser Foundation!

[patric]

The lights in dsjeffries photos are the Kim Lighting (Hubbell) "Bounce" fixture
http://www.kimlighting.com/1581.html
which is classified as a "Cutoff" fixture when ordered with the horizontal lens behind flat glass.
This is very close to Full Cutoff except that there can be as much as 2.5% of the fixture's output as uplight (whereas Full Cutoff allows no uplight).

Kim has an option to convert these to Full-cutoff by replacing the cap over the ballast (the part the light shines downward on which doesnt show up well in the photos), but in all honesty, either Cutoff or Full-Cutoff would be leaps and bounds beyond the glare-bombs that we currently use (semi- and non-cutoff), so this is encouraging, and it would be nice if lights in these categories became a regular, dominant part of our "approved fixtures" list.

Cutoff definitions here: http://members.aol.com/ActionCRL/cutoff.htm

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by patric

The lights in dsjeffries photos are the Kim Lighting (Hubbell) "Bounce" fixture
http://www.kimlighting.com/1581.html
which is classified as a "Cutoff" fixture when ordered with the horizontal lens behind flat glass.
This is very close to Full Cutoff except that there can be as much as 2.5% of the fixture's output as uplight (whereas Full Cutoff allows no uplight).

Kim has an option to convert these to Full-cutoff by replacing the cap over the ballast (the part the light shines downward on which doesnt show up well in the photos), but in all honesty, either Cutoff or Full-Cutoff would be leaps and bounds beyond the glare-bombs that we currently use (semi- and non-cutoff), so this is encouraging, and it would be nice if lights in these categories became a regular, dominant part of our "approved fixtures" list.

Cutoff definitions here: http://members.aol.com/ActionCRL/cutoff.htm

Let's just hope some of the City's Lighting "Engineers" take a look at these and realize how much more pleasant, safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and efficient they are.  I need to go down there with a tape measure and see how far apart they are, then measure how far apart the acorns in downtown are.  With fewer, lower-wattage lights, our skyrocketing lighting costs might actually turn the other way.

I'd have taken night pictures last night, but I fell asleep before the sun set!  Maybe tonight...

And, looking at TU again, I can't help but point out that the ground below the light isn't even lit...

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

And, looking at TU again, I can't help but point out that the ground below the light isn't even lit...

It seems that the beancounters who specify bad lighting like Acorns and other glare bombs arent the ones using them at night.  They look out at the fixtures from their office windows and marvel at how nice they look (in the daytime).

[PonderInc]

Hey!  Is that a TU architectural icon hidden behind that acorn?  I'm trying to see it...OW...my eyes!

About a year ago I talked to a guy at TU who was the manager over whatever department that installs and maintains the light fixtures.  He said that the regents selected the acorn lights as well as the retina splitting blue-white bulbs that go in them. (They thought the blue-white bulbs made the buildings look "better" at night.  Whatever.)  I got the feeling that someone on the board of regents REALLY liked the acorns.  Sadly, TU no longer looks warm and friendly at night...it looks like a sci-fi movie set.  Very cold and unwelcoming...and hard to SEE your way around.

[dsjeffries]

According to a woman on KTUL this morning, the new lights at the RiverParks are going to be turned on for the first time tonight....

Can anyone say picture time?!