Expressway Lights

[patric]

(moved to correct topic)

But just wait.  Three or four years ago when this was done, there wasn't much outrage until some ill-advised pedestrian tried to cross 244 in an unlit section of the highway and someone killed him.  That got the lights turned back on.

No amount of lighting fixes stupid.

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/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20081126_11_0_Apedes980050

[Hoss]

(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 

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.

[patric]

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.

[patric]

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.

[patric]

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?

[Townsend]

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.

[patric]

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