Finally - something city hall can be praised for.

Okay, let me see now ..... "According to the research, slowly reducing the energy supply to a street light by 40% cannot be detected by the human eye and creates no real reduction in lighting levels"

So, if I have this right, if reducing the energy supply by 40% creates no real reduction in lighting levels, then why bother putting in the dimmers in what I would assume to be more expensive dimmer technology in the first place? Why not just reduce the enrgy supply on a permanent basis?

In addition, if the pay back is close to one year, even give it two years, why not just do the entire city and get the full effect of the payback for the entire city?

If the math the City suggests is true, not installing all as quickly as possbile is wasting money. After the first two years in service we should be able to save enough to buy a few proper pothole patching machines, the year after that increase the amount of repavement, and soon after that get an improved weed programme in place, etc. etc.

I decided to see what kind of background report might have been presented to the good Councillors.

Interesting, to say the least.

It appears the lights that this technology is applied to are limited to the type of lights.

There is one more limitation. Some of the lights are installed on streets which have hydro owned lights on one side and city owned lights on the other.

As quoted from the report: "this is problematic since in those locations one side of the street may be perceived to be better lit than the other at certain times."

As I read that, and remembered that "reducing the energy supply to a street light by 40% cannot be detected by the human eye and creates no real reduction in lighting levels", I began to wonder which one of the two statements was true. If there is no real reduction in lighting levels, how on earth would the human eye be able to perceive that one side of the street is brighter than the other side.

There are times like these I wonder if these report writers and promoters actually realize how stupid they sound.

I also discovered the reason for the quick payback is that the city funds only a small portion of the total cost.

So, in addition to the City taxpayers paying $39,600, there is $212,566+ coming from the Pacific Green Energy Initiative, which is a BC taxpayer funded project.

So, the true simple payback to the taxpayer who lives both in the City as well as the Province is more like 9 years.

And here I thought we might have found gold at the end of the rainbow.

The article is not completely clear, however I would suspect the idea behind gradually reducing the lighting would be that you get the full intensity during the dusk/dawn periods where you need more light to illuminate, but then can dial it back in the pitch black, where there is also less traffic.

I just watched a report on LED street lights and how superior they are to the decades old technology Sodium Vapor street lights.

Sodium Vapor bulbs need to be replaced every 3-5 years, whereas LED lights only need to be replaced 15-20 years.

LED bulbs use less electricity and are 26% more efficient than Sodium Vapor.

LED produces a much brighter white light and provide 25% better visibility for drivers, and safety for pedestrians.

My question to City Council would be.... Are you people completely off your blobs? Why would you spend money on dimming old technology when new LED bulbs would pay for themselves on their own, and are a safer? Does anybody at City Hall actually do any research on anything?

Hi Hi Pylot!

Pylot has it 100% correct. The latest L.E.D. technology is simply awesome.
Same lumens or more, long operating life
and very low operating costs, plus as they go away, they get gradually dimmer, kind of like people in that respect, but city hall wants dimmer street lighting anyway, so it's perfect!
metalman.