The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Ever wonder why you can safely drive 70-80mph on an unlit highway or turnpike at night, yet doing 55mph on a Tulsa expressway is a deathwish if there's a couple of streetlights out?

Architectural Lighting Magazine just published this bit on road markings being neglected in favor of much more expensive (but effectively questionable) lighting:

http://www.archlighting.com/architecturallighting/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463586

quote:

---

    The article "On The Road with Light" presented a detailed review of the three methods for roadway lighting calculations. Not discussed was whether or not roadway lighting is warranted at all, and if warranted, to what degree. RP-8 (American National Standards for Roadway Lighting (http://"http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?product_id=739518")) does not address criteria for "when" roadway lighting is necessary�the standards only apply to continuous lighting. And what warranting criteria are to be used for "spot illumination", which applies to many if not most local roads? There are fundamental questions on the circumstances under which roadway lighting is warranted, and these questions deserve careful consideration by public officials and lighting engineers:

    1. With fierce competition for limited public financial resources, under what criteria does the investment in roadway lighting provide a reasonable return on investment in terms of collision avoidance?

    2. If roadway lighting does provide an appropriate return on investment, does that additional level of collision avoidance provided by lit roads apply at all hours, from dusk to dawn, or is most of the benefit realized before midnight, after which traffic volume may be negligible? Would turning streetlights off after midnight significantly contribute to energy conservation without significantly affecting rates of collision?

    3. Could passive alternatives such as reflective pavement markings provide a similar degree of public safety, and if so at what cost?

    In the 1970s, in response to an energy crisis, CalTrans decided to remove all roadway lighting from limited access freeways, except for those located at the interchange. In the 30 years since these roadway lights were taken down, CalTrans has not seen the need to reinstall roadway lighting on freeways. CalTrans has now commissioned a study, due for completion in 2008, to determine whether roadway lighting is necessary even at interchanges.

    On local roads, most lighting is mounted on wood utility poles, and the spacing requirements are based on the weight distribution factors for the wires. Streetlights mounted on utility poles may offer little, if any, public benefit in terms of collision avoidance.

    100 years ago car headlights were very weak, compared to today. Back then there were few examples of roadway striping or reflective markers on the roads.

    The question for future research will be to determine the public benefits gained from investment in streetlights, and to compare those benefits to other areas of investment like healthcare or public safety. Until those questions are answered, CalTrans example of not using roadway lighting for freeways deserves careful consideration.

---

Just some light reading...

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

http://blog.syracuse.com/kirst/2008/01/lights_out.html

Nice to know Tulsa's not an island, after all...

Ive not been Public Works director Hardt's biggest fan, but I will admit I think he has a clue here:

Concerning highway lightning, Hardt said there is conflicting evidence that highway lighting adds to safety.

He says there is a safety benefit for lighting along arterial streets where pedestrians might come into cars and that lighting would not be affected.
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11807898

Public reaction has been good -- people are driving a little more cautiously, they are finding that their headlights were doing most of the work all along, and the doom-and-gloom talk radio predictions of a bloodbath in the dark havent materialized. 

If we are going to do away with unneeded expressway lighting, Public Works should undertake the task of making sure interchanges, ramps and underpasses are rewired so that they work independently of the decommissioned straightaway sections.

I would also start removing the decommissioned poles and fixtures before the copper and aluminum thieves do.
What isnt saved as spares can be sold off to bring in income.

Keep in mind there is a trade-off to eliminating unnecessary roadway lighting:  Reflective lines and markers must  be maintained, especially in winter when there is a lot of abrasive sand and salt on streets that grind away at  the painted lines, but in the long run it should cost much less than all the electricity and manpower to maintain less-effective expressway lights.

Despite the perception that unlit expressways are more dangerous than lit ones, TPD's numbers seem to indicate that, as far as crashes, there is no real benefit to having expressways lit:


Drivers are complaining to the city and to police.
"I know there's some concern," says Officer Craig Murray.

He did some checking to find out if driving in the dark is causing more crashes.

The city turned off the lights November first.
From then until December 31 there were 72 crashes on the Broken Arrow expressway. 43 percent of those happened after dark.

Officer Murray checked the same time frame during the previous year.
The numbers were similar – 73 crashes and 45 percent after dark.
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Highway-Lights-Out/-eHVJCEx-0qXm5Dmg034vQ.cspx

That's consistent with other findings across the nation.

There is so much wrong with this article it baffles me. The fact the LEDs are directional is not a downside--it's a benefit. When light is directed (and aimed) more accurately, it creates less glare and light pollution, which makes it safer for pedestrians and motorists. LEDs also uses much less energy and (contrary to Mr. Simonson, who is not a lighting expert), poles can be farther apart because the light shines only where it is needed.

Dark streets are much safer than lighted ones when we have bad fixtures that cast light in all directions--they create dangerous glare. Lights can become a hazard when done improperly.

And from my own experience driving around on Tulsa's now-dark highways, it's actually easier to see at night. Someone besides AEP-PSO needs to inform our city leaders about lighting. More does not always mean better.

I have no problem with turning off the expressway lights.  It's far more important to have well marked lanes (stripes painted with good, reflective paint) than it is to turn nighttime into day. 

While I'm not worried about expressway lights being out, I do think that digital billboards negatively affect public safety.  Funny that everyone agrees that "texting while driving" is bad... But our city councillors are OK with fast-changing, highly distracting, overly bright digital billboards that continuously take drivers' attention off the road.

Someday, we'll figure this out.

One other thing....
Last month, I drove past Oneok Field when the stadium lights were turned on at night.  The lights were incredibly bright, and the height of the freeway put drivers much closer to the source of the lights than normal.  (You're also much closer to the stadium than normal...for instance, driving past Skelly Stadium.) 

It was definitely distracting...and I'm especially concerned for those driving east on 244.  This is where, if you're looking over at the stadium, you may not notice the fast-approaching "fork" in the road...where 75 splits off to go north.  Hope they increase the number of crash barrels in that location!

Its tragic the new mayor is getting this sort of advice on streetlighting.

Ill go down the article:

Simonson says "having dark highways is dangerous for drivers".
That's a perception that isnt backed up by facts.  TPD's numbers show no real increase in accidents without expressway lights compared to a year ago with lights, and that's consistent with findings all over the country.

Simonson says "when we had the snow at Christmas time it was particularly hard for people to see through the storm in the dark on the expressway."
Reflective lines and signs are designed to reflect light back from the direction it came, such as from your headlights.  Their retro-reflective properties dont work with light at other angles, such as streetlights.  You can see this when it's rainy and the glare off of pavement from streetlights can be brighter than the light reflected from headlights.  In this instance, any lines on the street would show up in silhouette, if they were visible at all.
And, of course, once the snow covers the road, neither streetlights nor headlights will penetrate.  In heavy snowfall (like Christmas eve), streetlights only add to "whiteout" conditions, and when it's that bad, light from any source wont really help and you should get off the road and be seeking immediate shelter.

Simonson says  "Which ever might be the darkest and the most traveled, why don't we start there?"
No.  The "warranting" process for streetlights should be weighed on how much benefit, if any, the placement of a streetlight would bring. 
For example, a straightaway on the BA expressway might be dark and heavily traveled, but unless there are specific needs for streetlighting that cant be accomplished with something more effective and cost-efficient (such as properly maintained reflective lines and signage, referred to as "passive" illumination) then lights arent warranted.

Where a light would be warranted would be those areas where there are special circumstances, such as pedestrians in or near the roadway, or vehicular conflicts such as intersections, interchanges, ramps or other dynamic traffic conflicts that cant be adequately addressed with just reflective markings. 
Currently we let the people who sell electricity decide where and how much streetlighting we buy from them.  Bad practice.

"One complaint with LEDs is that the light they shine is too directional. That means the city may have to buy more lights to cover the same amount of space."
No.  That'a an obsolete "uniformity" argument that utilitiy companies have used to resist using "Full-cutoff" or low-glare streetlighting. 
It relies on outdated theory that every inch of a street must be lit even if it means considerable overlapping, but this hasnt been aprt of the IESNA recognized practice since at least 1999 (when ANSI/IESNA released RP-8-00 "American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting").
The utility companies still spout that because it translates to more electrical sales on the backs of taxpayers, though.  Dsjeffries pretty well hit the nail on the head recognizing that low-glare lighting is easier to achieve when you actually have control over the light's directionality.

Simonson says "The money would be gone. So we have a little window to do something with."
Maybe this time, but does anyone really believe there wont be additional grants in the months and years to come?

LED streetlighting is still an emerging technology.  It will continue to improve with time, but I will concede the temptation to use some money now to replace more expensive and wasteful streetlighting is valid.
The biggest downside to going with off-the-shelf products right now is that most of the choices will be dated in short time.

Remember early fluorescent lights, with their horrible hues of green and blue making everyone under them look like they are zombies?  That's where we are on LED streetlighting.
Now, that might be ok for some applications where color rendition isnt important, but if we go that route we need to select those locations carefully.

Otherwise, we should wait for LED's to mature to the point where they have more realistic color rendition (like that of incandescent lighting, around 3000 degrees Kelvin) or learn to live with the blues.

It seems that St. Louis drivers on Interstate 64 (aka Highway 40) handle the lights from the very close Busch Stadium just fine ...

For the newcomers to the board, we also discussed LED streetlights (and others) in detail with


Better Streetlights for Tulsa
 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11866.0)

I think the expressways need to be lit.

People stranded, mentally handicapped, or out working on a broken-down car at night are all at risk by unlit roadways. And it gets dark now around 6pm.

The city, idiotic as it is run, can't even afford to keep the lights on.

Upgrading to LED lights would save a huge percentage of the cost of having these lights on. I didn't read the article, but what do these new LED street lamps use, like 20% of the power of the current bulbs? That's an 80% reduction in the city's highway light budget year after year once the upgrade is done.

Whether to do it now or wait until LEDs are more affordable and technologically advanced is the only question. Eventually though, it would be pretty dumb not to make the upgrade.

--

Switching to LEDs is all good and well. But if you don't have the money to keep the regular lights on, you sure as hell don't have the money to upgrade to LED lighting, which ain't cheap.

Im not in agreement that we should light expressways end-to-end because some motorists dont bother to keep a flashlight in their car.
...and I can easily cite many, many instances this year where people were hit on lighted expressways or in broad daylight, but the fact that the crash rate between lit and unlit periods is virtually identical speaks volumes as to the "safety" claims of the expressway lights.

At expressway speeds, pedestrians should never assume drivers can react fast enough to avoid them, and this is true whether it's noon or midnight.   

I dont like the idea of turning off interchange lighting, though, as there are documentable safety benefits to highlighting conflict areas like ramps and other intersections.  It would be smart of Public Works to re-wire those circuits so they could be isolated from unnecesary lights.

Let me break it down for you a little bit better.

People are generally dumb. Both people on foot and people in cars make mistakes. They don't pay attention, many don't have flashlights or hazard cones readily available.

People in cars see things better, and have more time to react when the road ahead of them is lit up.

Tell me any of the above statements are not true.

It's not true.

You would have to ask highway workers how many of their co-workers they have seen hit and killed under broad daylight, or bright streetlights.   Hazard cones notwithstanding.
If anything, people do more stupid things given the false sense of security that streetlights provide.  Drivers drive faster on lit roads than unlit roads, and pedestrians make false assumptions that they can be seen.

As it is now, drivers are being forced to slow down a bit and pay attention because the expressway isnt lit like a downtown street.
 

(moved to correct topic)


When then-Mayor LaFortune had to turn off expressway lights, a local talk radio station wailed that a pedestrian, who ignored a nearby overpass, jumped a chain-link fence to cross an unlit expressway and get killed, died because there were no lights.

The radio station conveniently ignored scores of similar deaths in daylight or while the expressway lights were on to advance it's ratings case and the city eventually raided funds collected from burglar alarm licenses to pay the expressway electric bill.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=7753.0 

There are too many instances of pedestrians getting themselves killed thinking that expressway lights keep them safe:
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/20081126_autoped.jpg)
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20081126_11_0_Apedes980050

Hey guys, I 'm not saying I'm on one side or the other here.  But what I am saying is that when it comes to the subject of general public safety, more often than not municipalites/governments are more reactive than proactive.  If the outrage is pent up enough, then they will react to the perceived problem.

And sometimes they will ignore a mountain of evidence just to look good in the media.

The last couple of days, with all the melting snow and slick sand all over the roads has been full of accidents;
The OHP trooper that was rear-ended while parked alongside the Turner Turnpike, the motorists who decided to change a tire on a bridge Tuesday night, and the 20-car pileup on on 412 mid-morning.
It was, of course, a stroke of genius that someone decided that the wreck involving a car stopped on the shoulderless bridge over the Arkansas river, must have been due to no streetlights.

Nevermind the car is sticking out into traffic because someone would rather die than drive on their rim a hundred-so yards to the end of the bridge. 
Nevermind that the archives have many, many examples of the same thing happening under a burning noon sun, or under bright lights that do nothing but create the illusion of safety so that people can drive faster at night.

I could hear a group of motorcycles racing down the straightaway on the Broken Arrow expressway last night, which is not unusual except for the fact that I used to hear them all the time when the expressway lights were on.  Now it's only on occasion, when someone is truly daring enough to try it.  Safety benefit to having the lights off.

That's not unique to us, either: 


MOTORWAYS around Paris will have their lights turned off in the coming days to save on costs and reduce CO2 emissions.

It is only the second time that a French authority has turned off the street lighting on a motorway.

The Ile-de-France region wants to cut the level of lighting on main roads including motorways by half.

Previously the Nord-pas-de-Calais in 2007 region switched off lighting on the A16 route to Belgium but the state and local authority have yet to decide how to split the savings.

According to road monitors the DIRIF, the number of accidents dropped by 30% as a result of the change.

“Cars go slower and the drivers are more aware,” said a spokesman for the DIRIF.
http://www.connexionfrance.com/Paris-motorways-switch-off-lights-11655-view-article.html



If I had my druthers, though, I would make it a priority that Public Works restore lighting to interchanges, ramps and underpasses that require extra attention and visual assistance.  The straightaways would remain unlighted, but their reflective markings would be better maintained.

I did suggest to the Mayors office that underpasses would be good candidates for the LED lighting they are seeking to buy with federal grant money.  Seems it would be a perfect fit, and a way to "test drive" the transition to LED street lighting.  If they end up with the garish blue-rich LED's it wont matter as much in an underpass than it would in a residential area.

I was given a link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324388/Councils-accused-putting-lives-risk-turning-street-lights-save-cash.html#ixzz13fWu66Ux

detailing the fear-mongering that special interest groups were engaging in as a result of curfewing unneeded lights as a means of saving money, but aside from a "study" done by "automotive experts" (Autoglass) forecasting doom and gloom, the reactions of readers are the real gem:

What utter rubbish, in France all street lights in towns and villages are turned off at night, during my 6 years living i never heard of an increase in crime, or anyone being injured
- the thinker, ENGLAND, 27/10/2010 20:47

It probably has the opposite effect, the road I live on is lit up like a Formula 1 night race and as a result cars scream up and down the road regardless of the time of day, a little less light might slow them down a little.

Besides, my car must be very special as it has lights mounted on the front of it, it also has two red lights on the back. Not sure if this is some sort of cutting edge technology but it means when I'm not in the urban environment and dont have street lights I can still see where I'm going at night.
- mob, bortimer, 28/10/2010 3:47   

It would be interesting to look at accident rates while the expressway lights were off Vs. on.
I do remember TPD reporting that accident rates were slightly down (with only interchange lighting) compared to the same time the previous year with continuous lights.

Politically, it's a hot potato, because people just felt unsafe without the lights (even though that anxiety made them more attentive drivers), but it was enough to slow the city's fiscal hemorrhaging.

But, what exactly are we getting for the $525,000 a year it costs for the extra lights?

Glare in my eyes and a general pissed off feeling.

Baltimore is trying this to balance the budget, too.
Should we let them know that it actually reduces crashes slightly, as well as save money?

Critics cited an accident -- almost a year later -- as a reason to turn expressway lights back on, but notice how many more accidents there have been since then?
  

If you drive regularly along Route 100 in Howard County, you might notice the lighting is a little dimmer than it used to be.

In an effort to save energy and money, the State Highway Administration has cut back its overhead lighting on a six-mile stretch of the highway. If results from the year-long test are favorable, officials say, the state could reduce lighting on other highways.

Maryland is one of many state and local governments seeking savings on highway lights, said John Bullough, senior research scientist at the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

"It's something that people are looking at in terms of reducing cost — no doubt," Bullough said.

According to state highway officials, about 75 lights along Route 100 between Coca-Cola Drive and U.S. 29 have been "deactivated" as part of a pilot project to evaluate whether the state can cut its power use along state roads without compromising safety.

Altogether, SHA spokesman Charlie Gischlar said, 20 percent to 25 percent of the lights along the six-lane, interstate-style roadway have been turned off.

For now, the light poles remain in place. But if the test is successful, the state might remove them and recycle them to other locations. The primary aim, Gischlar said, is to reduce energy consumption as a "green" initiative. But he said any cutback in energy use could also yield savings in operating costs.

The experiment has raised concerns about safety in some quarters. For many motorists, a well-lit roadway is comforting, and many studies over the decades have shown that bright lights — in the right places — can save lives.

Highway officials said that even with fewer lights, the illumination of Route 100 will remain well within federal standards. But AAA Mid-Atlantic still has concerns about the test.

"With the nation's motorists aging rapidly, we need to keep in mind they tend to have more difficulty seeing to drive safely at night. We worry that deactivating highway lighting could curtail motorists' safety," said AAA spokeswoman Christine Delise.

Delise said AAA is urging the state "to proceed very cautiously" and to monitor the safety effects of the change.

"Obviously should there be any uptick in crashes during the test period, we expect SHA to abandon the program. Maryland may be saving money on lighting but one fatal crash will offset any savings," Delise said.

But Gischlar said safety is one reason for the experiment. If the state can reduce the lighting, it can also cut the number of poles that vehicles can run into, he said. Collisions with fixed objects such as light poles and trees are one of the most common types of fatal crashes on the nation's highways.

He said Route 100 was chosen largely because it is a relatively new road — opened in the late 1990s — where the lighting exceeds federal requirements.

Gischlar said the state is keeping the lighting at past levels at certain "decision points" — near interchanges, bridge and curves — but cutting back in other places.

Highway engineers are confident they can reduce lighting without any negative impact on safety because modern headlights are much more advanced than the "glorified flashlights" that were on cars when federal lighting standards were originally set, he said. The reflective quality of road signs and other markings also has improved in recent decades.

Some experts in highway lighting say recent research suggests a brighter highway is not necessarily safer.

Bullough, a member of the national Transportation Research Board's Committee on Visibility, said lighting has been shown to cut the number of crashes at "conflict points" where traffic comes together. But between those points, he said, "there really wasn't a large relationship between lighting and reduction in crashes."

The benefits of lighting might not be as great on limited-access roads such as Route 100, Bullough said.

"You're talking about very well-marked, well-delineated, well-channeled roadways," he said. "In general, what we found was the less potential for conflict you have, the less relationship between lights and safety there seems to be."

Bullough said roughly 20 percent of the country's roadways have lights; 80 percent do not. "It must not be a complete disaster. Otherwise, it would be the other way around."

Gene Hawkins, associate professor of civil engineering at Texas A&M University, said transportation departments have had to re-examine past practices during an era of budget austerity.

"Agencies have had to look at the service they provide and whether those services provide the appropriate value," he said. "The potential savings are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — if not the millions for a state — depending on how aggressively and widespread they pursue it."

Hawkins, also a research associate at the Texas Transportation Institute, said lighting is a good area to focus on because of the potential for significant savings and the advances in signage, road markings and vehicle headlights in the past 15 to 20 years. "The signs are not only brighter but they're bigger as well," he said.

Hawkins said Maryland's pilot program appears to be taking the "appropriate baby steps" before full implementation. But he warned against calling off the experiment just because a crash takes place, noting that it could have nothing to do with a reduction in lighting. He said decision-makers would need to evaluate the causes of crashes as well as the road's history.

For some Maryland motorists, the reduced illumination is no problem.

"Street lights create glare, as well as shadows, and actually make it harder to see the road," said Dave Adler of Elkridge. "Your car lights provide all the illumination that you need."

If a car broke down by the side of the road, lights could make the driver feel more secure, Adler said. But he doubted whether "those few instances" would justify the cost of operating the lights.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bs-xpm-2011-01-25-bs-md-highway-lighting-20110124-story.html