|
Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: PonderInc on March 31, 2008, 10:06:57 am 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. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: booWorld on March 31, 2008, 02:05:09 pm quote: 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. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on March 31, 2008, 02:10:20 pm 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 Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: sgrizzle on March 31, 2008, 02:18:33 pm 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.
Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: PonderInc on March 31, 2008, 03:16:52 pm 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). (http://www.lightingresource.com/images/products/largeicons/1030.gif) Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: dsjeffries on March 31, 2008, 06:24:02 pm quote: 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: (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2278/2378102591_bea887f506.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2378099547_0b5a937f28.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2376/2378101571_461f7941c7.jpg) And let's be honest, nothing is as bad as what TU (and the City of Tulsa) have done... (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2379013108_44a320903d.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2084/2379012386_8e794aa02a.jpg) Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: sgrizzle on March 31, 2008, 07:14:30 pm quote: Yeah, you're looking at the wrong fixtures. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on March 31, 2008, 10:49:32 pm These do appear to be Full-Cutoff:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2378099547_0b5a937f28.jpg) 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. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on March 31, 2008, 10:59:00 pm 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) Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: PonderInc on March 31, 2008, 11:56:07 pm 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! Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on April 01, 2008, 01:53:21 pm 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 Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: dsjeffries on April 01, 2008, 02:22:04 pm quote: 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... (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2084/2379012386_8e794aa02a.jpg) Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on April 01, 2008, 03:11:41 pm quote: 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). Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: PonderInc on April 01, 2008, 08:02:16 pm 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. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: dsjeffries on April 28, 2008, 08:11:08 am 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?! Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on April 29, 2008, 10:56:28 pm '"This is a long lasting light. It has a strong watt bulb that will evenly light the area," said Tanya Pitzer with River Parks.'
Metal Halide only lasts half as long as traditional Sodium (which would have been easier on the eyes) but they are leaps and bounds ahead of the Acorn glare bombs TU and DTU are so fond of. It's a step in the right direction. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: sgrizzle on April 30, 2008, 05:17:19 am I checked them out "opening night/morning" and they do look a whole lot better. The trail looked extremely well lit and while I could see the light from the fixtures while driving by, it was just reflection off the fixture and not direct light.
Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: cks511 on April 30, 2008, 06:01:18 am I certainly appreciated them being lit on my commute to work yesterday morning. I thought they did the job well. BUT, this morning the trail lights were dark AGAIN,....sigh.
Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: dsjeffries on April 30, 2008, 06:32:25 am I have pictures I took on opening night. I just need to upload them. I was a bit disappointed at first, simply because they are so bright. RPA should realize that because these fixtures are better and don't cast light up, that the lights don't need to be so glaringly bright.
Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on April 30, 2008, 11:21:42 am quote: AEP may have told them they need to be a minimum of 100 Watts to be "approved" so we need to work on that. It's good that they are more efficient fixtures, but being more efficient also means you reduce the wattage accordingly. Reducing glare is good, but overlighting creates safety problems of its own. They definitely need to follow up on this before they install the rest of the lights, or well just have to pay to re-do them on our own dime. Would be a shame to have thrown away a Kaiser donation because of a simple planning error. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: dsjeffries on April 30, 2008, 01:28:46 pm I merged a short exposure (0.125 s) and longer exposure (2 s) shot for this first image... By merging them, reduced the harsh glare, but there's still a lot of light that escapes the sides. The brighter bulbs do create a lot of glare, as you'll see in the second shot.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2115/2454401987_6876a41f63.jpg) This is more of a close-up shot instead of looking down the trail at all the lights... and it shows what is actually a very harsh light. (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/2454414087_a489e6f785.jpg) They're a great improvement... we just need to reduce the wattage! Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on April 30, 2008, 01:49:50 pm quote: ...And we need to do it before they install the rest, otherwise it will cost too much to fix later. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: dsjeffries on April 30, 2008, 05:34:30 pm quote: Tell me what I (we) can do. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on April 30, 2008, 05:56:11 pm quote: I contacted the Riverparks spokeswoman, and sent a letter to my councilor CC: the Mayors office. Would be fantastic if anyone else could do the same, or better, if they knew someone in the department. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: In2neon on May 01, 2008, 12:59:19 am I haven't seen them yet but be aware metal halide comes on very strong for the first fire up of maybe a hundred hours or less then plateaus in output for a while then dies off and need to be replaced before they actually go out...
100 w mh is a pleasing white light not blue white at all (at least newer incarnations of the lamp) and the technology is steadily improving in the area of color stability and incandescent - like appeal... I will take metal halide over sodium ANY day.... 70 watt MH is fine but you will argue with a brick wall when trying to talk FACTS with PSO and its field reps... They are like programmed machines to spout propaganda about sodium lighting and its so-called benefits when in actuality it is a more profitable light for them and the stockholders... let the lowly customer and his wishes for a white light be damned.... Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on May 02, 2008, 12:26:49 pm quote: You wont catch me beating the AEP drum, but there are a lot of instances where it's better to use Sodium lighting than Metal Halide. Sodium is easier on your eyes at higher levels than Metal Halide. By higher levels I mean Photopic Vs. Scotopic vision. The jogging trail is lit at Photopic levels using a bluish light source that performs better at lower (Scotopic) light levels (think pre-dawn light). Metal Halide is 3-4 times more likely to cause skyglow than Sodium because of the way blue light scatters in the atmosphere. This is more of an environmental, biological or eco-tourism concern, but if you wanted a clear night sky, Metal Halide would be a bad choice. Despite Sodium's orangish color, the light can evoke a more warm and inviting feeling than the coldness of Metal Halide (an important point for architects). You get more Lumens-per Watt with Sodium than Metal Halide, And last but not least, Sodium is the choice for streetlighting because the lamp life is twice that of Metal Halide, which translates to better maintenance economy (have to change them only half as often). But in2neon is correct that most high-intensity light sources are brighter in their first 100 hours (initial Lumens) than the rest of their lamp life (maintained Lumens), including Fluorescent lamps. How much their intensity depreciates (http://"http://www.nofs.navy.mil/about_NOFS/staff/cbl/lumentab.html") depends on the type of lamp. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: sgrizzle on May 02, 2008, 12:51:03 pm quote: I'm pretty sure someone at AEP just fell out of their chair, nonetheless. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: In2neon on May 04, 2008, 12:10:05 am (quote) Sodium is easier on your eyes at higher levels than Metal Halide. By higher levels I mean Photopic Vs. Scotopic vision. The jogging trail is lit at Photopic levels using a bluish light source that performs better at lower (Scotopic) light levels (think pre-dawn light). I respectfully disagree.... While technically what you say may be true, my overall perception says different... If I have been driving in sodium light for a while and then arrive to a place like DT Dallas where it is lit with Metal Halide, and my eyes and my psyche seem to have a weight lifted off of them ... Instantly things are recognizable and the light seems to agree with life itself, similar to sunlight color and looks more natural... Same driving around interchanges in Tulsa where sodium is on the lower cobraheads on the highway stretches and the exits are lit with MH tower lights (which are sodium fixtures re- fitted with MH due to vibration issues with the HPS ceramic arc tubes) and there is the same relief when you go into the white light ... (quote) Metal Halide is 3-4 times more likely to cause skyglow than Sodium because of the way blue light scatters in the atmosphere. This is more of an environmental, biological or eco-tourism concern, but if you wanted a clear night sky, Metal Halide would be a bad choice. I think a clear night sky in the city is not a likely scenario since this is a free country and people and companies can light their property, and will, no matter how ugly ... Even if I personally do not like the looks of someones lighting scheme (and I HATE the shotgun approach to lighting for the record) My only recourse is if they trespass light onto my property without my permission... (quote)Despite Sodium's orangish color, the light can evoke a more warm and inviting feeling than the coldness of Metal Halide (an important point for architects). I am not sure where you are getting your info from or what metal halide lamps you are looking at, but the metal halide lighting I have seen is not like the 80s bluish MH but VERY warm almost incandescent in appearance and not blue at all...Look at some spectrum charts of new color MH and see just how much better and fuller the spectrum of useable light is... (quote) You get more Lumens-per Watt with Sodium than Metal Halide, If you were thirsty, even VERY thirsty, would you prefer a glass of clean, clear water to drink, or a gallon of dirty water to quench your thirst... I'll take a lower light level of quality lighting than a higher nember of unuseable lumens anyday.. think "glass of clean water" as opposed to "bucket of dirty water"... And last but not least, Sodium is the choice for streetlighting because the lamp life is twice that of Metal Halide, which translates to better maintenance economy (have to change them only half as often). Not entirely true without a few comments... HPS (orange) starts out with a golden white appearance and in some situations it is just barely tolerable and only sometimes pleasant... since most outdoor lighting is relamped only when is goes out, HPS is allowed to go on living after it turns an obnoxious pinkish color for a long time til it dies... MH indeed has a lesser lifespan but also should be replaced before it actually dies for the sake of light output and color... However, the new (somewhat of a breakthrough) pulse start (and most lower wattage MH lamps already are) lamps have longer life and more stable color and lumen output... In my opinion it is more likely a third less useable life and I would gladly replace lamps more oftem (slightly) and have quality lighting than a lot of light that is poor quality... Woodland Hills started out with 1kw HPS fixtures in the 70s and changed out everything a number of years ago and the facility has a much more pleasing appearance now, than then, even if a lot of light is wasted through too high wattage distribution, that's another rant... Walgreens @ 31st & Harvard recently changed out all HPS to MH and what a difference on how appealing the area without increasing wattage and maybe even lowering light levels... They just changed the color.. But in2neon is correct that most high-intensity light sources are brighter in their first 100 hours (initial Lumens) than the rest of their lamp life (maintained Lumens), including Fluorescent lamps. How much their intensity depreciates (http://"http://www.nofs.navy.mil/about_NOFS/staff/cbl/lumentab.html") depends on the type of lamp. Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: TheArtist on May 04, 2008, 09:31:09 am I prefer a golden glow to outdoor, night lighting. You dont need or want bright white or full spectrum outdoors at night. Its not as though its an indoor office space or a museum where you need sharp light to see everything by or to pick up all the colors in a painting. Soft, full spectrum outdoors would be better than some harsh white or blue light though.
I put one of those twisty halogen bulbs in my hallway fixture just yesterday, then took it right back out lol. It screamed WHIIIITE!, harsh, cold... just horrible. I promptly put an old bulb back in lol. My house is old world Italian and the lighting should be warm and cozy, not contemporary, or stark and "institutional". lol Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on May 04, 2008, 11:47:16 am quote: Perceptions can change. Just trust your eyes. You can experience the same type of "relief" when transitioning from the harshness of Metal Halide back to the muted colors of Sodium, so you may be really just enjoying periodic changes of scenery. quote: Yet there are a number of Tulsa-sized communities that do successfully regulate outdoor lighting to eliminate wasteful practices like glare, light trespass and skyglow. They remain not only a free society but enjoy a higher quality of life, safer easier-to-see streets, pay less taxes for their municipal lighting and sometimes benefit from tourism that comes with a clear night sky. I would be happy if we were able to reign in the out-of-control spending on wasteful city lighting. What could we do with a couple of extra million? Keep pools open in summer? Head off utility rate hikes? quote: Wholesale changing out of groups of lamps near the end of their life (rather than playing catch-up one-at-a-time when they start dying) is they type of Lumen Maintenance that professionals often do with Sodium, Metal Halide, Fluorescent, etc. But with Metal Halide you should expect to do it twice as much as with Sodium. quote: I fully agree that when a more efficient technology comes along, you should use the opportunity to save the electricity while maintaining the illumination level, but electric utilities and greedy merchants instead take the approach of burning the same Watts but increasing their illumination levels, even if it accomplishes nothing more than to say "look at me!" We may very well find that the new Riverparks lighting, while superior to other glary lighting along the parks, may be overlitlit out-of-scale with it's surroundings (even after the lamps settle in). AEP wants municipal lights to burn a minimum amount of watts to load down it's off-peak system or they wont "recommend" Public Works approve them. So we are left with the question of do we force ourselves to adapt to AEP's needs or should it be the other way around? Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: In2neon on May 05, 2008, 12:55:52 pm quote: Title: RiverTrail Improvements Include NOT Lousy Lighting Post by: patric on May 06, 2008, 12:14:18 pm quote: That's hysterical, but consistent with my dealings with AEP. quote: 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. |