Ann Arbor officials cancel plans to de-energize street lights after negative response to pilot program
Ann Arbor officials are calling off plans to de-energize 1,250 city street lights after getting negative responses to a pilot program where lights were dimmed in one neighborhood.
The Ann Arbor City Council voted 8-0 Monday night in favor of a resolution canceling the shutoff of 17 percent of the city's street lights. The resolution was sponsored by Mayor John Hieftje and Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward.
Ann Arbor officials say they'd like to install more LED lights like the ones downtown, but DTE Energy, which owns 78 percent of the fixtures throughout the city, has been less than cooperative.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Monday's vote reverses a budget decision from earlier this year that was expected to save the city $120,000 in annual energy costs while reducing annual carbon-dioxide emissions by nearly 1,000 metric tons.
With the city facing a multimillion-dollar budget deficit earlier this year, the City Council instructed City Administrator Roger Fraser to explore ways to reduce expenses. Fraser recommended de-energizing street lights in over-lit areas.
The council approved the cuts, but requested a pilot program be held first. The city conducted a pilot program over the summer that included de-energizing nearly 50 street lights in an area bordered by Stadium Boulevard, Packard Street, Washtenaw Avenue and Independence Boulevard.
"Residents from the area reported nearly universal dissatisfaction with the pilot," Taylor said on Monday. "And it became their common perception that the street lighting ... was not merely a vehicular benefit, but was rather a benefit associated with the pedestrian experience — pedestrian feelings of safety, and feelings of safety in property."
Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, offered her a recap of the situation in an e-mail to constituents on Sunday.
Briere said the pilot program showed residents weren't happy to have their lighting reduced, and DTE Energy, meanwhile, wouldn’t reduce the city's electric bill.
The areas targeted for de-energization were those where street lighting levels exceeded the roadway lighting standards established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, which were adopted by Ann Arbor in the 1970s.
Taylor said Monday night he hopes city administration will look into the fact that the standards don't take into account residents' sense of safety in their neighborhoods.
The council's decision to suspend the de-energization program on Monday requires dipping into the city's general fund reserves for $120,000. Council members justified the decision by noting the state of Michigan has not yet made further cuts in state revenue sharing.
According to city records, Ann Arbor spends about $1.45 million per year to energize and maintain street lights — a figure city officials believe could be substantially reduced by installing energy efficient LED lights.
One of the challenges to doing that, city officials say, is DTE owns about 78 percent of the street lights in Ann Arbor and has been less than cooperative with the city.
"So far, all of the costs that we've received from DTE for converting their lights to LED do not make any sense for the city to pursue from a financial standpoint," Andrew Brix, the city's energy programs manager, said during a report to council Monday night.
Monday's resolution directs Fraser to consider a new plan that would involve a more comprehensive look at street lighting and other cost-saving measures to reduce or eliminate the need to de-energize street lights until more lights can be replaced with LEDs.
"We would be delighted to be able to use and install LED lights in those street lights," Taylor said. "We are, however, unable as of yet to come to some accord with DTE as to the savings which would be passed onto the city as a result of the installation of LED lights."
Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said during Monday's meeting he thought the neighborhood that was studied was a good place for the pilot program.
"The houses are set back from the street, there's a lot of tree canopy, and so it's kind of a perfect case study to show what really could go wrong in a de-energizing street light program," he said. "If our expectations were that our residents were going to light the sidewalks with their porch lights, it doesn't work when the house is a good 50 to 75 feet off the road."
Council Member Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward, had stepped away for a break when Monday's vote on the de-energizing resolution occurred. Council Members Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, and Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, were absent.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
LAEL
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.
@Justavoice I care. I don't like the orange glow in the sky and I miss the stars that are fading out from all the city light. There are lighting solutions that energy efficient and reduce light pollution. http://www.darksky.org
Stefan
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 4:10 p.m.
I am a local lighting specialist and it is frustrating for me to learn of municipalities struggling with lighting issues and worse yet, making decisions without good information. An experiment like this was doomed to fail from the start. You cant take away something like the perception of security after dark and expect people to support it. There are numerous solutions to lighting issues but most of the information about lighting comes to cities from special interest groups (manufacturers) from their lobbyists (sales representatives) sometimes through an engineer who is not educated on current lighting technologies or new evidence based design methods. Therefore, most recommendations are product based which is not always the best option to consider. LEDs are the newest sales tool but it is not always the best design solution, there are many other methods to consider! The IES has a new design guide that considers the high benefit of the lighting quality factor for people. There are too many lighting energy upgrades that do not provide good lighting to help people using the space long term. This creates many long term problems. Lighting quality (the ability to see well) is most of the time, not part of the conversation; it is mostly just about footcandles. This is an old outdated design approach. A conversation about energy efficiency without equal emphasis on lighting quality is a disservice to the project and the people long term.
Snehal
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.
I wonder why can't they repalce the DTE energized street lights with solar powered lights? Can't $120,000 which will be saved be used to replace with solar panelled lights? And it won't be $120,000 savings but much more as we are not dimming out DTE but just replacing it.
Killroy
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.
@ An, the inference could be made based on your generalized comment. I simply disagreed with the perceived presentation of opinion as fact. No need to get angry.
An
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:54 p.m.
@ An, "We have lower crime rates than neighborhoods with street lights." You said this. So why do I need a study to state an observation about MY neighborhood? I wasn't claiming that ALL neighborhoods without lights are safer, I just said mine appears to be. I'd rather you not comment on my comments.
R.Davis
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 9:55 p.m.
DTE is just determined to vacate all forms of money from your wallet's/purse's. They do not care about "going green" or if their billing rate is higher than other little companies... You need electricity... they have it. It is true that they bill flat rates for public area lighting (per light). If these lights were metered then every customer would pay even more for the upkeep and the people needed to read meters. I do think that they should give incentives to the city for conserving energy via LED lighting. All they need to do is measure 1 light in a common area to get the standard bulb cost vs. LED cost in that same light. Isn't it easier to keep getting the same amount of money for less energy though? LOL DTE is not out to give you a good reliable service. They are there to make money. bad DTE is bad.
Milton Shift
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:52 p.m.
It made me feel uncomfortable. Ann Arbor does not suffer from too much street lighting. Sometimes on a whole street you'll only have one light.
Goodneighbor
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:09 p.m.
The Street Lights that run along the block of Division Street between William and Liberty have been off for months now. Orange barrels and construction materials and equipment are continuosly being rotated in and out of the west lane. The City said to call DTE...DTE said they'd look into it... that was over three weeks ago.... any ( constructive, :-)! ) ideas???
AfterDark
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 6:43 p.m.
There are a few LED streetlights on Turnberry just off Packard. They are very bright but the light seems poorly directed and much is wasted. The shield on the fixtures needs to be designed to direct the light downward more. (Snow accumulation won't affect the lights unless the weight buildup becomes too great.) The lighting rule of thumb I've heard is that your eye should be drawn to the area being lit rather than to the light source itself. Very little lighting in Ann Arbor and Ypsi satisfies this rule and most local porch lights are worthless if one needs to read house numbers, even in the newest neighborhoods.
Justavoice
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 6:17 p.m.
It's interesting that no one ever cares about light polution. It's interesting all you see is more and more lights going in every day, where there is already significant lighting. There certainly has to be a balance for safety, but if you look at the comparative studies, bright lighting can also be used by criminals to hide. If you think about it, if your staring right at a bright light your more apt to see a bright light than whats sneaking behind it hiding from the public or patroling police. There are ways to achive safety while reducing electrical costs and light pollution (motion lighting which is apt to catch someones attention if someone is sneaking around, well placed lighting verses putting a light pole everywhere just to light up the sky, and directed lighting verses sending out a ton of unused light to the horizon). I understand the safety aspects, but I think we've been oversold on the fact that unless you have lighting 20 times brighter than the sun in one location this is safer than having adequate well directed lighting that cuts the usage and carbon output while saving someone's retinas and sleep from being overrun by unnecssary lighting. I've seen new road installations add extra lighting for road work where there was already more than adequate lighting by very near by shopping centers (Who by the way continue to light there signs and parking lots during off hours wasting a ton of money and energy). While I'm not suggesting that I know how the test area lighting is setup or if it was adequate, the bottom line is overall we don't correctly engineer for lighting (be it public or private) and we waste a lot of money and energy while not really improving safety for the sake of sticking another light in under the guidlines of "Well if it's brighter, it's safer". I certainly agree my neighbors and love one's need to be safe, but on the other hand we can't continue to pour money into lighting and heating up the sky. I certainly find it hard to get away from it in my own home let alone the constant glow in the sky particularly on a cloudy night. Just my 2 cents as always.
Lokalisierung
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.
an said "My neighborhood is within the city limits of Ann Arbor, has many trees and ZERO street lights and we are ok. We have lower crime rates than neighborhoods with street lights" That isn't making a correlation to less lit areas having lower crime rates. They are saying in their particular neighborhoos, less light isn't giving a bulge in crime rates. That's pretty obvious what they meant.
Killroy
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 2:22 p.m.
@ An, "We have lower crime rates than neighborhoods with street lights." You said this.
javajolt1
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.
What on earth is the point of purchasing and erecting street lights if you're going to turn around and "De-energize" them?? This is the silliest thing i've ever herd. The lights are there to illuminate the streets when they are DARK! "De-energizing" them is a muggers dream! And what's with the term "De-energize" anyway. Why not call it what it is: SHUTTING THEM OFF.
Lokalisierung
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.
Oh my gosh i can't live with the lights off and can't bare to think of AA being "plunged into darkness." Haha.
John of Saline
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.
was expected to save the city $120,000 in annual energy costs while reducing annual carbon-dioxide emissions by nearly 1,000 metric tons. Doesn't a lot of our power come from splitting uranium atoms at the Fermi plant? I wouldn't be so sure about the CO2 reduction.
A2jo
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.
Hmmmm... you think people didn't like the lights being turned off??..just wait a few more weeks when the City's new "Leaf Program".. i.e. the "BAG YOUR OWN LEAVES" Program takes effect!!!
An
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.
@Jeffery "@ An, your notion that less light at night equals less crime is a bit of stretch. I have never seen a study (or its results) demonstrating this point. Have you?" I do not think I said this. Can you quote me as having actually said this? I think what I said is that crime is low in MY neighborhood and that we don't have a single light. I have not taken the time to look for studies and I most likely will not take the time. I just, personally, don't think that lights make that much of a difference. That is a PERSONAL opinion, and it was never stated as a fact.
Brad
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.
From the city's de-energizing FAQ: 13. Does DTE still charge a street lighting fee for de-energized streetlights? The city will pay a reduced rate that reflects the reduction in energy use. This is a standard rate approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission, the state entity that regulates DTE. So which is it, and why the confusion?
Killroy
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.
@ An, your notion that less light at night equals less crime is a bit of stretch. I have never seen a study (or its results) demonstrating this point. Have you?
An
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:37 a.m.
"The info that DTE charges the same regardless of the amount of lights makes me wonder if we shouldn't add more lights, light the place up better." I think the fee is a "per light fixture" fee, not an overall fee charged to the city. If this is the case, adding more lights also adds more fees.
peg dash fab
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:30 a.m.
i gather that (1) there are relevant standards on lighting that are exceeded, (2) the city's plan fell within the standard, (3) residents whined that the standard is inadequate, and (4) someone discovered that DTE holds the city hostage and tacitly dictates energy policy. ok, that is an interesting story. now we need a reporter who can tell us who sets the standards, what the standards mandate, and whether the standards are met or exceeded in some or all city neighborhoods.
dogpaddle
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:28 a.m.
Let's stop bashing City Council who is made up of who we are - human beings - who tried something to save money. Some liked it, most didn't. While City Council (our fellow human beings) do make mistakes here and there, I personally feel they are doing the best they can do in the face of much financial adversity in this very insane economic time. From what I am reading here, to me, the entity to be "bashed" should be the bad guy, DTE! If LED lights can save money and reduce emissions, then is there a way to lose DTE? Make them cooperate or switch. I know they've been a monopoly forever, but I keep getting things in the mail to switch. Aren't there other sources of power besides DTE? Tell DTE they can stick their street lights where the sun doesn't shine! And thank you, City Council, for trying and mostly for listening to your citizens.
blahblahblah
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:24 a.m.
"Light pollution" is a global threat! How are our telescopes suppose to see the space invaders when they come or a planet killing asteroid?
Mick52
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:09 a.m.
A friend lives in that area and recently he made a comment on how dark it has become - he was not happy. I do not think he knew about this silly experiment. I think a key fact would be did City Council know that the electric bill would not be less and resident taxes would not be lowered for this folly. If so, this is an example of social agenda politicians imposing on their citizens based on their personal opinions, not on what is good for the citizens. The info that DTE charges the same regardless of the amount of lights makes me wonder if we shouldn't add more lights, light the place up better. I agree with atnaap on the crime effect of lighting. Better for traffic safety, in that you can see better. Do not be lead into a false sense of security if your neighborhood is well lit. Many crimes are of opportunity.
BobbyJohn
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.
What is ironic is that there are many streetlights in A2 that are on 24/7, truly wasting energy and dollars during bright daylight, i.e. 12 hours/day on average. Left messages on this for Andrew Brix, city energy czar for years, and no action. There is one very close to city hall at Miller just west of Main St. that I am sure has been passed by thousands of times by city employees and all of city council thousands of times (been on continuously for years). If this city can't throw money at the problem, they pay no attention to it.
theodynus
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:10 a.m.
@5c0++ H4d13y: It is not a fact that lighting reduces crime. There have been dozens of studies on this and their conclusions have been mixed. Part of the problem is that it's hard to separate out cause and effect. Lights get installed for many reasons. Sometimes they're installed in response to crime in particular neighborhoods and the lights drive crime to other parts of the city without reducing the overall crime rate. Sometimes lights get preferentially installed in wealthy neighborhoods that don't have a crime problem to begin with, so crime remains unchanged. Sometimes lights create opportunities for criminals. Lights create bright places for pedestrians to walk, but because your eyes adjust to the light level near the sidewalk, you aren't able to see people hiding in the deep shadows nearby. Similarly, it can make it either easier or harder for cars to see pedestrians and animals, depending on implementation. Lighting isn't one-size-fits-all. Personally, I'm a lot more comfortable walking around in areas without overly bright streetlights ruining my night vision and would love to see the city turn off most of its lights.
An
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 9:28 a.m.
My neighborhood is within the city limits of Ann Arbor, has many trees and ZERO street lights and we are ok. We have lower crime rates than neighborhoods with street lights. As for why we can't hook up the street lights to another power provider, well, if DTE owns 78% of the street lights, THEY will not be hooking up to any other power company. Why would they? As for the other 22%, what about shutting off every other street light instead of every single street light in a neighborhood. Would that not still reduce carbon emissions?
KJMClark
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 9:13 a.m.
Why wouldn't DTE charge less? Do we have some contract with them for a fixed number of street lights? If so, is it based on average usage or something, and how long is the contract? That should be an electricity charge plus maintenance contract. I wonder if there's some other company that we could hire to do part of that work when the contract expires. What about the 22% of lights that the city owns? What about non-neighborhood areas of the city? There are a few long stretches of road in town with very little foot traffic late at night (like Huron Parkway). I would think that LEDs would be a big up-front cost with long-term benefit, so unless someone is helping us pay for them, this may not be the best time to switch anyway.
Brad
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
Anybody know whose responsibility it would have been to establish that money would actually be saved? That seems like a pretty huge oversight to me. Since I'm assuming that the act of deenergizing the lights and placing the signs on the deenergized lights cost something, it was actually a money *losing* venture it seems. Perhaps one of our councilpersons would care to comment here?
Mark
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.
Though I am sure it wasn't appreciated by everyone, I did not mind having the streetlight out across the road from my house.
bugjuice
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.
As government is defunded by the anti tax crowd what we'll end up with is a la carte government where public services like street lighting is an extra for those who can afford it. Even after paying taxes, if you want street lights or an "extra" like fire protection for your home or your neighborhood, you'll have to pay DTE or a private company for it. Note that in this Tennessee town a homeowner must pay an extra $75 fee if you want fire protection from an adjoining municipality, even if the firefighters show up they won't put out the fire. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html Tea Party supporters take note. What are you willing to pay for government services?
Ian
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
@Elaine, Whatever happened to that wonderful "energy deregulation" pushed by our politicians that was suppose to increase competition and bring down energy prices?
John Mann
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:47 a.m.
It's unfortunate that DTE does not pass on the savings from using LED lighting to the city. This seems possibly a case of corporate self-interest. If one wants to move away from reliance on large entities like corporations for the necessities or amenities in life, then a solution is to find ways to provide them on a smaller scale. An interesting story in today's New York Times (October 5) reports that the US military is planning to move heavily into using solar power and other renewables. This has happened due to the extreme cost, in money and lives, of using oil-derived energy in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, the "bad guys" attack the convoys of tanker trucks which supply the US military, as those trucks pass through the Khyber Pass from Pakistan into Afghanistan. This move into Solar and other renewables by the US military, with its huge budget for research and development, will probably make solar power "happen" on a large scale much sooner now. The technology will improve and its cost will both come down, so small communities can rely more on their own locally-produced energy. It's a bit ironic perhaps that the main reason for the Iraq war, that is, securing a military presence in the Mideast for a couple generations or so, so as to ensure a continued access to the oil there, has in a roundabout way led to the military preparing to invest large amounts of money in technologies which will lessen the dependence on oil and hence less need for this type of war.
Killroy
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:46 a.m.
@ CobraII, and in the spring, summer, and winter months were supposed to do what? Torch squirrels?
Beth
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
Interesting that the story makes it seem as though they expected residents to turn on their porchlights to compensate for the streetlights being off. No energy savings there, but of course it would put the cost of the electricity on the residents instead of the city.
Elaine F. Owsley
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:29 a.m.
Is DTE the only supplier Ann Arbor can use? Nothing like a monopoly to have it their way.
Chuck
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:27 a.m.
Jeez we won't need the last one in the Deuce to shut off the lights. The city will do that for us, how nice.
Ian
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.
"Monday's vote reverses a budget decision from earlier this year that was expected to save the city $120,000 in annual energy costs while reducing annual carbon-dioxide emissions by nearly 1,000 metric tons." I cannot believe our government officials are stiill concerned about CO2 levels. It has been proven and admitted that all the data used to justify man-made global warming was manipulated ("climategate"). Also, CO2 is not an evil gas as we have been lead to believe. Plants need CO2 to grow. Consequently, they release O2 which we need. How is that bad? Finally, CO2 makes up only.038% of all greenhouse gases. In other words, negligible. It is insane how the masses are manipulated and scared into believing lies by our politicians.
xmo
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:16 a.m.
I cann't believe it, the city of Ann Arbor is destroying the world! What happen to saving the world at any cost? Who cares if we save $120,000 in annual energy costs while reducing annual carbon-dioxide emissions by nearly 1,000 metric tons. Just think if people stop beathing, we could make up the 1,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions.
CobraII
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:08 a.m.
Maybe we could burn our pile of leaves instead of having street lights!
Merle
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:08 a.m.
It is very satisfying to know that citizens can make a difference. I live in the test area and, yes, we were very vocal about the fact that this was not an acceptable situation. A vote for the democratic way! Hope the lights are turned on as fast as they were turned off.
Merle
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:06 a.m.
It is very satisfying to know that citizens can make a difference. I live in the test area and, yes, we were very vocal about the fact that this was not an acceptable situation. A vote for the democratic way! Hope the lights are turned on as fast as they were turned off.
LXIX
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.
All Value in the universe stems from two things - Resources and Intelligence. More specifically - Energy (the jello) X Information Capacity (the mold). Since the Big Bang, the universe has always been just Energy and its change. Or, if you prefer Creationism, then its omni-Intelligence and its change. Given there are too many people on planet Earth and a shrinking resource pool - not enough Energy to provide the American Dream to everyone - then the Globalism Value balloon must be squeezed someplace to expand it anywhere else. You are now in the process of being squeezed to expand human Value (the economy, stupid) in China, India, Mexico, Iraq, etc. What can you do about it? 1. Increase the Resource base to supply every one's sustainable growth. The Chinese intend to mine the ocean floor for resources and now have the world's deepest diving sub technology to do it. The Chinese have the most active and coherent space program in the world. They are building their own space station (why? Isn't there an International one?). They will be traveling to the Moon starting next year and then on to Mars. The US? Privatise NASA. Yep. We are taking backwards our Country alright. The UM? Ann Arbor Parks for Hospital parking and Downtown (& South U.) for more Student high rise housing. Yet Obamacare will likely be gutted and remote learning will supplant the Go Blue U experience (No, the wealthy can live in Aruba and fly in for football weekends. No the Chinese can go to Peking U - if not attend remotely from Aruba). 2. Increase the Intelligence of everyone and their application of that knowledge. The US? Give the world our brains in exchange for their market production/access. Corporate Stock holders and maybe a trickle-down U.S. public will benefit (as long as China allows foreigners to own their stock and still recognizes the Dollar). The UM? Very clever. Start joint Intel Ventures that might continue after the U.S. becomes a closed Third World Nation. 3. Nobody really wants to discuss this Value option. 4. Remember.. Value is universal. Our solar system looks like a resource to others, too.
mcwee
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:44 a.m.
Wait, they were only doing that in my neighborhood?
Some Guy in 734
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:42 a.m.
and why wouldn't DTE reduce our bill if we were using less electricity??? My understanding--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that DTE doesn't meter street lights. They just charge a flat rate per light. Given the cost of installing LED lighting, and the impossibility of recouping the cost through energy savings, that seems like a potent disincentive.
Brad
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:32 a.m.
The headline seems pretty misleading. It would make one think that it was canceled due to the negative response of the citizens (which would be sensible), but in reality we all know it's because it would save ZERO DOLLARS, which they were oblivious to. Great job, council.
Killroy
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:29 a.m.
Some great responses! Yeah, the pilot program which took place in my neighborhood was a real nightmare. It was odd, coming home at night w/o any street lights! Especially, given the fact that the tree canopy pretty much wiped out any ambient lightening. @ sandy schopbach, yes, last Winter a number of signal lights simply froze over and turned into giant, hanging snowballs. I wonder how the city will address this problem this Winter?
sandy schopbach
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:10 a.m.
I have a question regarding LED lights. It is my understanding that they do not heat up as much as regular lights. During the winter, wouldn't they freeze over and consequently give even less light?
5c0++ H4d13y
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:06 a.m.
It's a known fact that reduced lighting in cities leads to an increase in crime. Maybe they should rename it The Rapist and Mugger Support Project?
a2terri
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 6:54 a.m.
and why wouldn't DTE reduce our bill if we were using less electricity??? That is disappointing. I hope that the city still plays with tweaking the system to see if we can find some areas where we can reduce our use - for budget and planetary benefits. I agree that lighting is important for feeling safe, but there are likely to be some areas we could compromise on. I also know folks who complain of there being too much light at night...How about the city setting up and promoting an online "reduce lighting suggestion box"?
A2Adam
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 6:10 a.m.
"......a pilot program where lights were dimmed in one neighborhood." The opening remarks of this article should be corrected. The lights were not dimmed. Some of the lights were turned off, with no light output. It is misleading to stated the the lights were dimmed. It would be more beneficial to the audience if the author stated that the overall light output was reduced by turning off certain street lights. These points were clarified later in the article, so thank you for addressing the the key facts.