quote:
Originally posted by In2neon
To spell it out they cant make as much money off of a quality fixture and light source so they tell you sodium is the best light and most reliable blah blah blah and wont even listen to thinking outside their little box...
Even had one tell me that when I wanted a MH cobrahead installed on a site that they did not even make such a thing and went on to try to sell me on sodium ...
I asked him how many Mh fixtures he would like me to order for him ...
That's hysterical, but consistent with my dealings with AEP.
quote:
What a load of crap that PSO has ANY say in our lighting around our town other than to serve the public best...
Why does the City just blindly follow their recommendations when there is a motive to skew numbers and facts to maximize their profit potential..I am all for making a profit but let's just put all the cards on the table and all the facts not just the skewed facts they want to promote and then act like that is all there is to be known..
It's almost like the city giving AEP a blank check.
Part of this is our fault, however. When people complain loudly how much they "need" even the poorest and most inefficient lighting to ward off evil from their streetcorner, it's easy for a politician to just say "gimmie more" and the utility obliges.
There are municipalities (and even states) that require that to install new municipal lighting, you must first "warrant" the need as well as demonstrate that the lighting will actually meet that need.
For instance, a roadway with no pedestrians is better served by maintaining reflective markers than with a lighting system, while an area with pedestrians is better served with pedestrian-oriented lighting. Not like our "one-size-fits-all" from the utility that gets its way by default.
One of the more "hip" developers in Tulsa described the streetlighting bureaucracy in Tulsa as nothing short of scandalous.
Since it involves millions in tax dollars every year, maybe it's a scandal we should be addressing a bit more.