[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DSLF] Digest Number 559
_________________________________________________
To subscribe to the DarkSky List Forum send email
to: DarkSky-list-subscribe@yahoogroups...
Help save your town from obtrusive lighting --
invite your planning and zoning department to
join us! Ask them to visit the IDA website at
http://www.darksky.org today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Ketchum street lights -type used
From: Stephen Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
2. Re: Virginia Enabling Legislation
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
3. LP by LRC
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
4. re: Intermodal Cargo Handling Facilities
From: Mike Hansen <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
5. US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
From: "einhornresearch" <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
6. Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: Gary Citro <callisto@optonline...>
7. Lighting and Highway Safety
From: Mike Hansen <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
8. Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: "David Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
9. Re: US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
10. Re: LP by LRC
From: "Michael J. Cook" <michaeljcook@rogers...>
11. Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: Yvan Dutil <yvan.dutil@sympatico...>
12. Re: Illuminance vs Uniformity
From: "David Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
13. Definition of Light Pollution
From: Scott Griswold <griz@sky...>
14. Re: Illuminance vs Uniformity
From: Barry Johnson <johnsonb@ivwnet...>
15. RE: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: "Hoehne, Brad" <hoehneb@chi....edu>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:43:53 -0700
From: Stephen Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
Subject: Ketchum street lights -type used
For those asking for the exact brand of street lights
we used in Ketchum when converting from drop lens
to fco:
GE M250 R2 Cat id# m2rc10s12gmc2.
Steve P
Steve Pauley MD
Sun Valley, ID
Life is not measured by the number of
breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:47:02 -0000
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Virginia Enabling Legislation
--- In DarkSky-list@y....., "Glendon L. Howell" <glendonhowell@c.....>
wrote:
>
> Since CT-DOT has adopted FCO, I was wondering how uniformity
> issues were being handled in both new and replacement
> installations --- i.e., by ignoring the issue, by decreasing
> pole spacing, by increasing pole height, or how?
>
Hi Glen:
DOT is doing a great job so far and I have called them to express my
feelings. Needless to say, they were surprised to get a complement.
Some of what I'm telling you I also related to the DOT as well.
In all honesty, I have noticed absolutely no perceivable difference
in lighting uniformity where FCO luminaires have replaced semi-
cutoffs. Note the operative word *perceivable* because my
observations were not based on average to minimum uniformity
evaluations measured with a light meter. With all FCO retrofits
installed so far, the visual conditions for drivers have been
significantly improved and the skyglow over the road areas affected
has been reduced to where the improvement is definitely noticeable.
It works and it works very well.
On one primary 4-lane roadway some poles have been replaced with
mounts that are about 10 feet higher. It is presumed the taller
poles were installed to improve uniformity by increasing the spread
and dropping the illuminance levels. Both are beneficial to improve
uniformity when FCO is installed. The lighting levels are still way
too high to notice headlights on the pavement and people are still
driving without the benefit of their headlights turned on even where
FCO has been installed.
There has been absolutely no reduction of the luminaire cycle
(distance between centers) in any areas that I have seen, and I spend
at least 15 hours on these highways every week. The reduction of
glare is very noticeable and this significantly improves driving
conditions after dark. It is very interesting to note that most
people put their brakes on at the point of transition where FCO turns
back into semi-cutoff lighting!
On one 4-lane road at least two accidents have occurred at the same
point of FCO transition over the past couple of months judging by the
trenches dug into the median and the skid marks left on the road. I
do not know what time they happened but there is no other hazard
(i.e., lane merge, exit, topography change, etc.) except for the
extreme glare that comes from the semi-cutoff lighting.
Luminaire wattage remains at 400-watts for the 4-lane (each way)
primary roads and 250 or less for the secondaries that are 1 to 2-
lanes each way. Essentially, the FCO retrofit replacements have been
one-for-one in regard to lamp wattage and spacing interval. On
secondary roads no increase of mounting height has occurred.
For those who may be wondering how reducing illuminance levels could
improve uniformity consider the fact that no light at all represents
a uniformity ratio of 1:1 just like full moonlight or full sunlight.
Uniformity adds more to enhance visual acuity than the illuminance
level does, but a balance between the two is the status quo of any
roadway lighting design.
Clear skies and good seeing,
Keep looking up!
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:44:07 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: LP by LRC
Check this out from "our good friends" at the LRC:
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=75228&category=O
We are stepping on their exclusive turf, and
they want more research money. -sd
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: 21 Jan 2002 13:24:43 -0500
From: Mike Hansen <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
Subject: re: Intermodal Cargo Handling Facilities
The US DOTs Volpe Center for Transportation Innovation here in Cambridge, MA has issued the following statement in one of its 1999 strategic planning documents.
----------
Lighting is a valuable, and generally inexpensive, method of increasing security levels at facilities.
Industry Recommendations
1.
Illuminate all vehicle pedestrian gates, perimeter fence lines, and other outer areas with mercury vapor, sodium vapor, power quartz lamps, or substantially similar high intensity lighting, employing a minimum of 400 watts per fixture. The Society of Illuminating Engineers recommends the following light intensities measured at ground level.
* Vehicle and pedestrian areas2.0 foot-candles
* Vital structures and other sensitive areas2.0 foot-candles
* Unattended outdoor parking areas1.0 foot-candle
2.
Protect lighting subject to vandalism by wire screening or other substantially equivalent means and establish a system of planned maintenance. When installing, locate lights 30 feet above ground level and properly spaced to provide the appropriate light intensity for the area to be illuminated. Adequate lighting should be provided for the following areas:
* Entrances, exits, and around gatehouses.
* Cargo areas, including container, trailer, aircraft, and rail-car holding areas.
* Along fence lines and parking areas.
----------
Full text and context is available at: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/strtplns/nstc/cargo/chap4.html
--
Mike Hansen
2561 Massachusetts Avenue #1
Cambridge, MA 02140-1020
617-661-6520
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:06:15 -0000
From: "einhornresearch" <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
Subject: US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
FYI from September 2001
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/euroroadlighting/
One of my favorite quotes which shows how much research they
did: "The team was not made aware of any formal sky glow
restrictions in Europe."
Really, though, there is lots of great info in here: "Although
France has no limits on powerconsumption, it is not unusual to
dim the lighting, to save energy, between the hoursof 10 PM and
6 AM. A recent survey by the Center for Studies on Urban
Planning,Transport, Utilities, and Public Constructions (CERTU)
shows that one-third of French towns decrease lighting at night,
and 8 percent of the networks are dimmed at night.In Finland, an
analysis of lighting-system costs over 20 years shows that
electric energy is two-thirds of the total cost. To save energy,
some Finnish roadways have high/low-style controls, and light
levels are lowered. The motoring public has not complained."
The last sentence is a keeper!
--
Mike Hansen
2561 Massachusetts Avenue #1
Cambridge, MA 02140-1020
617-661-6520
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:23:58 -0500
From: Gary Citro <callisto@optonline...>
Subject: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
Warriors:
Today's Albany Times-Union featured an op-ed piece in opposition to the NY
bill.
This is significant as the Governor supposedly reads this paper first each
day, and he must decide on the bill's fate by the end of the month..
It is written by a representative of the Lighting Research Center, who once
again has stated that more research needs to be done. That of course would
be state funded research, which is exactly what *they* do.
Kinda like someone in the oil buisness saying "We need to drill for more oil
and produce more gas guzzling SUV's".
The main claim is that basically FCO's may cause more light pollution due
more fixtures being employed and thereby causing more reflection up into the
sky off the ground. So more research has to be done. By them. BTW, does
light reflect off the ground differently in Tucson and the other places
where similar bills have passed than it does in NY?
You can click on the link below to read the whole piece.
But here's what we need in NY ASAP, please. A person or persons with
credentials to fax a rebuttal to this article on letterhead to Gail Clyma,
who is working directly with the bill sponsors.
If you fax by Wednesday 1/23 by 12:00 PM, fax to 631 288-2354.
If you fax after 12:00 PM Wednesday, fax to 212 737-0504.
We would greatly appreciate this, as it may make or break passage of the
bill at this point. Thanks!
Here's the link to the article:
"More research needed on reducing light pollution"
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=75228&category=O
Gary Citro http://selene-ny.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: 21 Jan 2002 14:35:53 -0500
From: Mike Hansen <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
Subject: Lighting and Highway Safety
For those looking for information, studies, etc. on the relation between roadway lighting and accidents, here are some sources. I'd be very interested in seeing people's analysis of this material:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/////pubrds/fall94/p94au8.htm
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/97095/ch02/body_ch02_04.html
--
Mike Hansen
2561 Massachusetts Avenue #1
Cambridge, MA 02140-1020
617-661-6520
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:28:04 -0700
From: "David Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
I would (of course) agree that more research does need to be done (hopefully
by someone other than LRC) because -
YES! Light does reflect differently in a ***wide*** open dirt and sand
environment that in a forested or built-up environment - one reason why one
"solution" does not fit all cases. Surprise, surprise!
David Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Citro" <callisto@optonline...>
To: "Dark-Sky Mailing List" <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: [DSLF] Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
> Warriors:
{edited for brevity}
> The main claim is that basically FCO's may cause more light pollution due
> more fixtures being employed and thereby causing more reflection up into
the
> sky off the ground. So more research has to be done. By them. BTW, does
> light reflect off the ground differently in Tucson and the other places
> where similar bills have passed than it does in NY?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:00:45 -0700
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
Subject: Re: US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
I think the information in the Safety section is the most "illuminating"
(referenced from my "paper" copy):
"Most of the countries reported significant safety benefits in terms of
crashes, injuries, and fatalities when roadway lighting was installed. Some
sample statistics follow:
- Finland reported 20-30 percent reduction
- A Norwegian study that was cited revealed a 65 percent reduction in
nighttime fatalities, a 30 percent reduction in injuries, and a 15 percent
reduction in property damage.
- Dutch studies showed reductions of 18-23 percent
...
Arguably the best data on this subject are available in the technical
report, "Road Lighting as an Accident Countermeasure", CIE 93,1992. This
report includes rigourous analysis of 62 lighting and crash studies from 15
countries. Eighty-five percent of the results show that lighting was
beneficial, with about one-third of these studies having statisticall
significance."
The US DOE/European report also finds US roads are typically lighted to
lower levels than European roads, while our "fatality rate" is *lower* than
or comparable to most developed countries.
Hmm, maybe we are doing something right? Of course, we can do much better .
. .
David Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "einhornresearch" <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: [DSLF] US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
> FYI from September 2001
> http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/euroroadlighting/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:41:13 -0500
From: "Michael J. Cook" <michaeljcook@rogers...>
Subject: Re: LP by LRC
Steve Davis wrote:
> Check this out from "our good friends" at the LRC:
>
> http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=75228&category=O
>
> We are stepping on their exclusive turf, and
> they want more research money. -sd
The tests they speak of should not be too onerous. There are limited "types" of
ground from which light would reflect back up into the sky - asphalt, concrete,
grass, gravel, etc. Is reflectivity from the ground that big a deal? Other
than snow or water surfaces, I would imagine the albedo of most surfaces is
quite low.
--
Michael J. Cook
Home Page - http://members.rogers.com/michaeljcook/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:52:59 -0500
From: Yvan Dutil <yvan.dutil@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
Gary Citro a écrit :
> Warriors:
>
> The main claim is that basically FCO's may cause more light pollution due
> more fixtures being employed and thereby causing more reflection up into the
> sky off the ground. So more research has to be done. By them. BTW, does
> light reflect off the ground differently in Tucson and the other places
> where similar bills have passed than it does in NY?
There is very similar to that a many people in the lighting industry who care
about light pollution. The general ideal is that we need to put pole 20%
closer in order to meet the illumination uniformity. This is not a trivial
issue.
I working on this problem right now. It seems from the data I got from
the ligthing engineer that they are right but not as much as they think
The advange between of cutoff vs FCO might be at most 10%. However,
this take anoly account of the uniformity. I am not sure that the small
target visibility criterion will gave the same result.
Yvan Dutil
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:00:42 -0700
From: "David Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Illuminance vs Uniformity
I would like to discuss the "balance" between uniformity and illuminance
levels - in fact illuminance and uniformity do both change as the AASHTO or
IESNA roadway classification becomes "busier and larger", but my sense has
always been that the illuminance "increases a lot" and the uniformity
"changes by a bit". And if uniformity were really important, it would be
presented for BOTH average-to-minimum and maximum-to-minimum - but the
second ratio is NOT used in illuminance method criteria, by which around 95%
or roadways are still designed.
The luminance design method has BOTH uniformity criteria but typically
allows for greater variance - while using less energy and producing less
uplight - and the newest IESNA design method of Small Target Visibility
(STV) has intrinsic evaluations of luminance, veiling luminance (glare) and
uniformity - and its most challenging design aspect is the introduction of
appropriate non-uniformity of horizontal illumination along with adequate
vertical illumination to produce suitable visibility - with even lower
energy use and uplight (by 20-30% compared to very good illuminance method
designs - even more compared to "conventional" designs).
Which method is YOUR state using?
Wouldn't we all like to see 20-30% reduction of the TAXPAYER costs of
roadway lighting - without loss of performance? How about 20-30% less
uplight without decreasing the visibility on the lighted roadways?
I know Colorado (and Texas, of course) is still using the illuminance
method, which explains a lot about their ability to switch toward
full-cutoff and not appear to have any problems - it's pretty easy to take a
mediocre and overlighted system and convert it into a slightly less
efficient system and not have many evident problems (see discussion below) -
and just stick the bill to the taxpayers for *new* poles, luminaires,
installation, etc. Which industry segment profits here? Isn't that the
same group which helped push full-cutoff to our Colorado legislature?
And the (uneducated) public thinks these are the best improvements
available? As cited elsewhere in this group recently: "400W luminaires on 4
lane roads"! Well maybe if the poles were around 50 ft tall - special
orders and *very* much more expensive than the typical 39 footers that fit
on 18-wheelers. I wonder if they could read the classifieds there . . so
the designers could find more suitable jobs!
By the way, all the light that the taller poles now spill off the roadway is
landing on surfaces around 3 times more reflective than the roadway -
probably producing more uplight for the same roadway lighting and a lot of
public money spent. Talk about unexpected consequences!
David Keith
> Hi Glen:
{edited for brevity}
>
>It is presumed the taller
>poles were installed to improve uniformity by increasing the spread
>and dropping the illuminance levels. Both are beneficial to improve
>uniformity when FCO is installed. The lighting levels are still way
>too high to notice headlights on the pavement and people are still
>driving without the benefit of their headlights turned on even where
>FCO has been installed.
{edited again}
> Uniformity adds more to enhance visual acuity than the illuminance
> level does, but a balance between the two is the status quo of any
> roadway lighting design.
> Cliff Haas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:03:44 -0500
From: Scott Griswold <griz@sky...>
Subject: Definition of Light Pollution
I have started by writing to Merriam-Webster and inquiring about the
process. I received a response from the associate editor within one
day. I am now awaiting a response to my request for permission to
share his response. To summarize, he took the time to explain the
process of how a definition gets updated. The process involves
researching the common usage of a word or term. It needs to be shown
that it is in wide use and not only within small areas. It also needs
to be shown in context within a wide range of publications. If I get
permission to print the reply I received, this will make more sense.
It seems that we could in all likelihood do some of the footwork that
Webster would normally take a great deal of time to do. By gathering
references in print and online that show the use of the term "Light
Pollution" in the context of it's varying uses (not centered on
astronomy), but including it, we may soon see a new definition in
print. This term was first entered into the dictionary nearly 30
years ago and it is greatly overdue for an update. With all the
publications siting this term in context of a variety of issues, I
see that it would be a simple matter to getting this updated. We may
even be able to get some press out of it. Having the term updated in
the dictionary would be a great PR story for the LP cause.
Any further thoughts?
Peace, Dark Skies and Safe Nights,
Scott Griswold
Woodstock, VT
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:00:21 -0500
From: Barry Johnson <johnsonb@ivwnet...>
Subject: Re: Illuminance vs Uniformity
> "And the (uneducated) public thinks these are the best improvements
> available? "
David,
What would be the best improvements available?
Barry Johnson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:37:13 -0500
From: "Hoehne, Brad" <hoehneb@chi....edu>
Subject: RE: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
I've always been under the impression that the Small Target Visibility
figures were completely "geometric" in nature and did not take into account
factors such as veiling glare. Is this correct?
Brad H.
[ Please trim past messages before sending replies! ]
> ----------
> From: Yvan Dutil
>
> I working on this problem right now. It seems from the data I got from
> the ligthing engineer that they are right but not as much as they think
> The advange between of cutoff vs FCO might be at most 10%. However,
> this take anoly account of the uniformity. I am not sure that the small
> target visibility criterion will gave the same result.
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/