I don't like involving politics or green talk into my Web Sites or Blogs but after reading below article I must speak up. After you read below article you may not get my meaning until after you have read my comments or have read the two articles below my comments. Please read on
Traffic Signal Project ($6 million)
Cities, counties and state entities would be eligible to submit proposals involving the synchronization of traffic signals through the installation, updating and/or maintenance of traffic synchronization technologies and/or the replacement of traffic signal lights with LEDs. Types of projects funded would include signal retiming, replacement of LEDs in old units, purchasing new signals, replacement of existing traffic signal control hardware and accommodating enhanced signal operations, and monitoring new signal timings to ensure the synchronization plan is working correctly.
Implementation for the Traffic Signal Project will be conducted on information or cost estimates to replace old signals with new ones, replacement of old lights with new energy efficient LED lighting, and estimates or invoices showing costs of monitoring.
SECO plans to allocate $4.8 million to traffic synchronization and $1.2 million for LED replacement. SECO has worked with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to determine a procedure to estimate gallons of fuel saved as a measure of energy savings due to traffic signal synchronization. This will be a required piece of any proposal submitted and SECO can update this metric once proposals are approved and under contract.
Request for Application (RFA) - Traffic Signal Project:
Energy efficient traffic light save tax payers money not just protecting the environment we are told.
But after reading above article and below articles I had to speak out. I'm tired of hearing this excuse: Sorry about the damage and or death in saving the blab, blab, blab we didn't know blab, blab, blab would do that. You can't hold us responsible we had good intentions.
Did your city fathers spend x amount of money to replace street lights in your town with the new environment bulbs? and now are going to spend another truck load of cash on maintenance of these traffic lights this winter.
LED lights give off no heat so ice and snow won't melt on traffic lights. Some city's have had these lights for years now, with complaints from the start. We now are hearing this winter about all the city's with these new lights having a larger increase in traffic accidents, and now blamed in causing one woman's death.
Claims are now they are trying to find a economical way to solve the problem. My bet is before it's over we will have more deaths due to the LED lights.
They are telling ever one to drive as if the light is out. Most people will but there is always the ones that won't, how many fools do you see out on the road today? Plus I thing at times at a intersection that light will be obscured to some drivers and others drivers can see the light fine. There goes the err on the side of caution rule.
Again no one thought things Thur. No LED lights should have been installed in any location that have a chance of snow or icing in winter until a economical solution was found to solve the problem.
Knowing the problem from around 2000 they should have no excuse. As usual no solution for the known problem has been found. Now a life was lost because someone put energy saving in of front human life and property. The excuse will be we had good intentions , we were saving taxpayers money and saving the environment.
They started first installing these energy saving lights somewhere around 2000. These lights are very costly, and at the time only came in red.
Written by Ed Morrissey
Thursday, 17 December 2009 05:54
The effort to change the bulbs traffic lights from high-energy incandescents to low-power LEDs does make sense — in those areas of the country where snow is not a factor. Unfortunately, just as with the decision of Seattle to stop using salt for clearing roads of snow, the decision to go green has created fatal traffic conditions for no good reason whatsoever. At least one person has died from the use of LED traffic lights in snowstorms, as the LEDs are not hot enough to melt the snow when it covers them (via Instapundit):
Cities around the country that have installed energy-efficient traffic lights are discovering a hazardous downside: The bulbs don’t burn hot enough to melt snow and can become crusted over in a storm — a problem blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death.
“I’ve never had to put up with this in the past,” said Duane Kassens, a driver from West Bend who got into a fender-bender recently because he couldn’t see the lights. “The police officer told me the new lights weren’t melting the snow. How is that safe?”
Many communities have switched to LED bulbs in their traffic lights because they use 90 percent less energy than the old incandescent variety, last far longer and save money. Their great advantage is also their drawback: They do not waste energy by producing heat. …
Illinois authorities said that during a storm in April, 34-year-old Lisa Richter could see she had a green light and began making a left turn. A driver coming from the opposite direction did not realize the stoplight was obscured by snow and plowed into Richter’s vehicle, killing her.
“Would the accident have occurred if the lights had been clear? I would be willing to bet not,” Oswego police Detective Rob Sherwood said.
The picture [above] shows the traffic light in Oswego that caused the death of Lisa Richter earlier this year. The snow made the traffic light useless. No driver could possibly have spotted a red light, and even the green would have been difficult to discern at speed, especially during the daytime. Oswego may just have well turned off its traffic lights and set up four-way stops at every intersection for all the good these systems do in snowstorms — when traffic lights are more necessary than ever.
I’m not opposed to the use of LED replacement technology in traffic lights. Not only do they use a lot less energy, they likely will last much longer, leading to fewer replacements and less down time. But clearly, politicians and bureaucrats are making big mistakes when they put environmental concerns ahead of safety, especially in areas where snow and ice are routinely issues. Illinois and St. Paul, MN, two jurisdictions mentioned in this article, should know better than to use low-heat traffic lights, perhaps especially in St. Paul, where snow and ice are constant issues in the wintertime.
Let’s use our heads. LED lights work well in warm-weather areas and should be pursued there. Incandescents have to remain available to cold-weather areas like Illinois, Minnesota, and much of the northern areas of the country. Salt has to go down on roads in order to ensure driver safety when ice and snow cover the asphalt. Common sense would go a long way in applying environmental solutions.
In conclusion I must think out loud, WHAT did the citys do with all the incandecents rough service light bulbs that was replaced with LED Lights.
Would they toss these bulbs that cost us about $3.98 a bulb in the trash?
What will it cost to dispose of the mercury filled LED bulbs when replaced.
