mrschmitz
member
Reged: 10/19/11
Loc: Iowa, U.S.
|
Interesting response from the city/energy company
#4942397 - 11/30/11 10:45 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
The street light style my city uses are reflector wide-dispersement "orange" sodium lights, and way too bright, in my opinion. Since I started the hobby a couple of months ago, I immediately noticed how problematic they can be to me when observing from my front yard. They don't shine up or anything, but the cone of light is very wide.
Thanks to forums like these suggesting I do so, I put in a request to my city's energy company who maintains the street lights to install shields on the two street lights closest to my home, claiming they bother my family.
I actually received a response from them, bittersweet as it was, and I'm not sure what I want to do. They said they no longer install shields anymore, but instead replace the entire street light head with a flat bottom/cutoff style light, that only shines straight down, and charge the requesting customer $50/light to make this modification. Using this cutoff style of street lights seems like something they should have done in the first place! I've already (nicely) emailed the city and asked for an explanation of why that type of light isn't used by default already.
Anyway, I'm unsure of what to do...will it make $100 (2 lights) worth of difference to me to get this done? Thoughts?
|
csa/montana
Den Mama
Reged: 05/14/05
Loc: montana
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4942439 - 11/30/11 11:13 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Actually, $50 a light is not a bad price at all. While I agree, they should do it; most towns, cities; are struggling with their budgets, same as us. They probably wouldn't be able to explain this extra cost.
I would think it would be quite an improvement. Is there anywhere near you, where there are some of these lights that you can go visit after dark?
|
mrschmitz
member
Reged: 10/19/11
Loc: Iowa, U.S.
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: csa/montana]
#4942461 - 11/30/11 11:27 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I already received a reply from the city, and it makes me happy, thought I'd still have to pay to convert my street lights.
Here is their reply:
"The City is indeed installing flat bottom or cutoff lights on new City street and new subdivision projects. We began this 2 or 3 years ago. At present, the City is not considering going back on older installations and converting them."
Does this mean things are getting better? Will my grandchildren be able to see the stars without driving into the country? Perhaps?
|
edsplace
sage
Reged: 11/02/11
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4942497 - 11/30/11 11:46 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Pay the $100 and start a trend. Light pollution effects everyone but most people don't understand it. I moved to Detroit from a loction where I could look up and see M31, in Detroit I have a diffuclt time hunting down Polaris. Every small step forward in reduction helps. $100 for a little darker yard will pay off for years and maybe even set a trend. I get excited thinking about the possibilities in your community. $500 gets you 10 streetlight, $1000 20! Raising $1000 for a good cause is not a large undertaking. Imagine what replacing a whole neighborhood full of streeting would do for the area.
|
mrschmitz
member
Reged: 10/19/11
Loc: Iowa, U.S.
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: edsplace]
#4942505 - 11/30/11 11:51 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
My heart just skipped a beat. Here's another response (apparently they like my congratulations):
"The City is exploring LED street lighting as well – uses less energy. LED lighting is another style of cutoff or ‘dark sky’ lighting. We’ve installed these at a few of the City facility parking lots under a grant. However, the technology is quite new and the cost to install is high at present. I do think this is the direction we will go as the technology improves and the cost to install drops."
Note he specifically mentioned "dark sky lighting." Sounds like heaven!
|
csa/montana
Den Mama
Reged: 05/14/05
Loc: montana
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4942535 - 11/30/11 12:06 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
It certainly is great that your city is aware of LP! 
|
blb
Post Laureate
Reged: 11/25/05
Loc: Piedmont NC
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: csa/montana]
#4942541 - 11/30/11 12:12 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Sweet, there is hope for some of us. My city officials said that they can't afford to replace the fixtures and are replacing the bulbs as they burn out with high pressure sodium lights that use less energy. Wow! those are much brighter lights.
|
Skylook123
Postmaster
Reged: 04/30/05
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: csa/montana]
#4942547 - 11/30/11 12:15 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
WOW, this thread is certainly not the norm in dealing with a bureaucracy. Way to go to be proactive, and most likely not saber rattling. And your city has someone who knows how to communicate. Lucky, you!
|
mrschmitz
member
Reged: 10/19/11
Loc: Iowa, U.S.
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: Skylook123]
#4942551 - 11/30/11 12:20 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
WOW, this thread is certainly not the norm in dealing with a bureaucracy. Way to go to be proactive, and most likely not saber rattling. And your city has someone who knows how to communicate. Lucky, you!
I first got mad, then simply sent a nice email. Not much effort is required for that kind of proactivity! I also just now sent out a tweet on Twitter mentioning the city and saying how happy I was with how they are dealing with light pollution...they usually retweet that kinds of stuff, so maybe I can get light on other people's radar a bit, too.
|
amicus sidera
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/14/11
Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4942668 - 11/30/11 01:43 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
The $100 fee appears to me to be adding insult to injury - they are already flooding your property with unwanted light, and want you to pay to correct the situation! I quite understand that the utility will incur a cost to replace the lights, but they should bear the full cost as they are interfering with the "peaceful enjoyment of one's property", are they not?
If the lights are entering a window and possibly interfering with your sleep, you might make them aware of this, and ask that they waive the fees.
If no joy, there is always recourse to your state's Public Utilities Commission... and ultimately, the Courts.
|
astroRoy
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/09/11
Loc: Southern Oregon
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: amicus sidera]
#4942683 - 11/30/11 01:56 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
The cost of replacing the fixture would be much, much more than $50. I think they are asking for a small fee to replace the light, in order to control the volume of requests. If it is as important to you as is obvious to all of us here, then it is a small token to contribute to the city's effort to please you. I envy you your city administration. Before I got into astronomy, I often complained to the city about there being no streetlights on my block. Now I enjoy the darkness, and I am glad they ignored me. However, with rising costs, we now have to pay $2 a month for street lighting. It is added to our water/sewer bills.
Roy
|
dkb
sage
Reged: 07/23/08
Loc: Minnesota
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: amicus sidera]
#4942689 - 11/30/11 02:01 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
The $100 fee appears to me to be adding insult to injury - they are already flooding your property with unwanted light, and want you to pay to correct the situation! I quite understand that the utility will incur a cost to replace the lights, but they should bear the full cost as they are interfering with the "peaceful enjoyment of one's property", are they not?
If the lights are entering a window and possibly interfering with your sleep, you might make them aware of this, and ask that they waive the fees.
If no joy, there is always recourse to your state's Public Utilities Commission... and ultimately, the Courts.
Forcing the city to do this would be a bad way to go and could easily backfire. It is much better for them to cooperate willingly. I think a lot of government entities can be shown it is beneficial for them to use full-cutoff fixtures. Not only because they can use lower wattage and SAVE MONEY but it makes it safer to drive not having a light glaring in your face.
The save money argument differs a lot by region. The more the local electric rates are the better this argument is. In the US northwest for instance where a lot of electricity is from hydroelectric dams electricity is too cheap and therefore there is much less incentive to save energy.
The fact that this city is replacing the fixtures with full cut-off as needed is a BIG step forward and eventually even these two lights the original poster mentioned will be replaced for free but it may take years.
$50 per light to replace is a AWESOME deal. I've paid $35 a piece just for shields on neighbors dawn-to-dusk "security" lights. I'd try and find other amateur astronomers in the area to help get rid of those lights quicker.. through educating the public in that city (maybe a lot of people don't know they can replace them for $50) and even fundraising..
|
mrschmitz
member
Reged: 10/19/11
Loc: Iowa, U.S.
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: dkb]
#4942745 - 11/30/11 02:45 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Well, I'm not worried about the cost, and I fully understand it. I think it is fair.
Good news is, I have already chatted with a wanna-be astronomer friend/neighbor who likes my scope setup and he offered, without me asking, to split the cost of one of the lights because it shines directly into their bedroom. Bonus! So, it pays to talk to the neighbors, some might even float you a little cash.
|
amicus sidera
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/14/11
Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: dkb]
#4942781 - 11/30/11 03:11 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
"Cooperation" for a fee is not cooperation at all, in my opinion.
Regarding the purchase of shields for neighbor's lights... while this solves the immediate problem, it merely "kicks the can down the road" in terms of getting to the root of light pollution and light trespass. In effect, one is allowing one's birthright of enjoying the night sky to be held for ransom, just as in the case of the fees demanded (and make no mistake, it is a demand - no performance without payment) of the OP. Acquiescing to what amounts, in my opinion, to legal extortion has and will delay needed reforms... until there is a foundation of favorable case law or BPU precedent established in this arena, the war against light pollution will continue to be lost.
As Thoreau once said, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Light pollution is evil, make no mistake. It is long past time for it to be identified as such, and treated thusly.
eta: comments I deemed unnecessary.
Edited by amicus sidera (11/30/11 03:55 PM)
|
magic612
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/30/08
Loc: S. of Chicago's light dome
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4942792 - 11/30/11 03:21 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, I'm unsure of what to do...will it make $100 (2 lights) worth of difference to me to get this done? Thoughts?
I know you are already inclined to do this (I did read the thread), but as a matter of comparison, even cheap light blocking curtains or blinds would likely cost more, and this change will positively affect more than just your house. I say it's a good thing, despite the minor insult. 
One thing you should mention to your very responsive city personnel about the LED lights is for them to NOT use the ones that tilt towards the blue end of the spectrum. These are the most damaging to both the sky and wildlife; if they do decide to go that direction in the future based on lifetime costs, get involved and argue against the blue spectrum LED's.
|
mrschmitz
member
Reged: 10/19/11
Loc: Iowa, U.S.
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: magic612]
#4943060 - 11/30/11 06:04 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I know you are already inclined to do this (I did read the thread), but as a matter of comparison, even cheap light blocking curtains or blinds would likely cost more, and this change will positively affect more than just your house. I say it's a good thing, despite the minor insult.
One thing you should mention to your very responsive city personnel about the LED lights is for them to NOT use the ones that tilt towards the blue end of the spectrum. These are the most damaging to both the sky and wildlife; if they do decide to go that direction in the future based on lifetime costs, get involved and argue against the blue spectrum LED's.
Oh, I'm on it. Even if it doesn't help that much to me, personally.
Would the LED spectrum used not really matter if they are using cutoff fixtures? So long as it it doesn't spill out, or be excessively bright?
|
magic612
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/30/08
Loc: S. of Chicago's light dome
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4943086 - 11/30/11 06:21 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I know you are already inclined to do this (I did read the thread), but as a matter of comparison, even cheap light blocking curtains or blinds would likely cost more, and this change will positively affect more than just your house. I say it's a good thing, despite the minor insult.
One thing you should mention to your very responsive city personnel about the LED lights is for them to NOT use the ones that tilt towards the blue end of the spectrum. These are the most damaging to both the sky and wildlife; if they do decide to go that direction in the future based on lifetime costs, get involved and argue against the blue spectrum LED's.
Oh, I'm on it. Even if it doesn't help that much to me, personally.
Would the LED spectrum used not really matter if they are using cutoff fixtures? So long as it it doesn't spill out, or be excessively bright?
From what I understand, it does matter. Excellent reading material here: http://www.illinoislighting.org/lightcolor.html
|
mrschmitz
member
Reged: 10/19/11
Loc: Iowa, U.S.
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: magic612]
#4943224 - 11/30/11 07:44 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Interesting, so it does. That was an interesting read. Hopefully the warmer LEDs are cheap enough for the city to use them. Hard to make the energy argument when warmer LEDs are more expensive and not as bright.
|
teast
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/10/07
Loc: Kentucky
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4943545 - 11/30/11 11:51 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I agree that the cost to replace the light is probably far more than $50.00 and is probably subsidized somehow. While it might seem a little unfair to ask a resident to pay a fee rather than have it covered by the city, it may be the only way to get action given the current economy.
Maybe the city could be persuaded to start an "Adopt a Streetlight" program. Publicizing the benefits of the full cutoff lights - better visibility, less glare, less costly in terms of energy, and darker skies - might be a way to get the ball rolling. Based on the communications you've had so far, it seems like someone with the city might respond favorably to such an idea.
-Tom
|
core
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/23/08
Loc: Mostly in Norman, OK
|
Re: Interesting response from the city/energy company
[Re: mrschmitz]
#4943632 - 12/01/11 01:30 AM Attachment (20 downloads)
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Consider yourself fortunate, $100 is cheap 
Back in 2008 when I contacted my city's traffic and lighting division, the initial option given to me was that I would not only have to pay the cost of MOVING an entire street lamp, it would require some easement for the utility company, laying power across the road, and maybe my mailbox would be in the way - think Paramount MX and up 
Anyways, I let it cool for a year or so, and it never occurred to me to call the utility company directly - all it took was a call, and in a couple of days they slapped a metal shield on the side; mind you I still have side-spill from the glass housing, but it's better than before.
Now, I'm trying to deal with 2 other lights that are in the backyard, but someone else's front yard - I've been told they can't do anything about it as the request has to come from those owners - it's in their front yard, and they may like all that lighting. 
PS - attached is the portion of street map that shows the city's proposal to move the light across the street.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
