[Durham INC] Fw: [durhamenviro] Throwing away Durham taxpayer dollars

Thu Feb 26 16:42:06 EST 2009

This sounds like an area in which Durham can cut costs...but all I know about the issue is what's in this email (see below). Would appreciate any discussion on the topic...

Melissa

Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com

--- On Thu, 2/26/09, Ned Kennington <nkennington at juno.com> wrote:
From: Ned Kennington <nkennington at juno.com>
Subject: [durhamenviro] Throwing away Durham taxpayer dollars
To: nkennington at juno.com
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 3:30 PM

Dear neighbor,
      According to
the City's OWN standards, the City of Durham is spacing streetlights
much
closer together than necessary on residential streets.  This
means that the City is paying hundreds
of thousands of dollars more every year for streetlights than it needs
to.  (To appreciate this, one needs to
understand
that streetlights do not reduce crime. 
If you are inclined to believe that streetlights do reduce
crime, please
read my previous message copied at the bottom below.)  
    On August 14,
2008, the head of the City's street lighting program, Ms. Terry
Thompson, cited
two national standards as the justification for the City's practice of
placing
streetlights only 150 feet apart on residential streets. 
(Using the fixtures and lamps that Durham
prefers, roughly 150-foot spacing is needed to provide 0.4 footcandles
of
approximately uniform horizontal illuminance on roadway surfaces.)  The email message where Ms. Thompson stated
that these standards are the justification for Durham's policy is
copied later
below.
      Here is the
critical section of the national standard that justifies spacing
streetlights
only 150 feet apart on Durham's residential streets:  
"Thus, it is the
other, the
non-driver, benefit that really justifies residential street lighting.  These include lighting for pedestrian
activities, bicycling activities, activities in and around the home,
personal
security and other elements of neighborhood enhancement. " 
(US Department of Transportation/ Federal
Highway Administration "Roadway Lighting Handbook", page 96)
    As the passage
above indicates, the 0.4 footcandle light level is called for in order
to
provide sufficient lighting to carry out the following purposes.  Please note that all these purposes are
NON-ESSENTIAL:  
·       
The standard makes it clear that there is
NO need for
lighting on residential streets to aid motor vehicle traffic.  (The standard says elsewhere that there IS a
need for lighting to aid motor vehicle traffic on larger collector
streets and
major roadways.)
·       
The standard says that streetlights are
useful for
pedestrian and bicycling activities (such as to help them avoid
stumbling into
potholes in the dark)  (If the streets
are that bad, pedestrians and bicyclists can carry flashlights or
travel on
larger streets that are better lit.)
·       
The standard says that streetlights can
assist
homeowners in activities in and around the home.  (This
is clearly not an essential government service.  If
the homeowner cannot provide lighting on
his own property, he can generally wait until daylight for outdoor
activities.)
·       
The standard says that streetlights can
enhance
personal security.  (The City government
might want to cater to residents' irrational belief that streetlights
make them
more secure, but this is not an essential government service.)
·       
The standard says that streetlights can
enhance the
neighborhood.  (Again, neighborhood
beautification
through streetlights is not an essential government service.)
    Thus, according
to the national standards that Durham uses to justify its street
lighting
policy, residential streetlights serve NO essential government purpose.  According to these standards, streetlights
on residential streets are a luxury, not a necessity.
    It might be
possible to provide justification for SOME level of residential street
lighting, but the City of Durham has not specified those levels or
justified
them.  The City has certainly NOT
justified the extremely high density of streetlights that they are in
the
process of installing on all residential streets throughout the City.
      We could save
hundreds of thousands of dollars every year by getting rid of
unnecessary
streetlights.  Cities all over the world
are saving energy and money by doing this. 
Fortunately, Durham does not even own most of its inventory of
17,148
streetlights.  Instead, Durham leases
them for about $9 per month each from Duke Energy.  So,
we could get rid of as many streetlights as we want without
losing money invested in City-owned equipment. 

     We could save
roughly $120,000 immediately in next year's budget by not adding new
streetlights to our ever-growing inventory. 
Instead, we could just pay a one-time cost to move existing
lights from
places where they are not needed to places where new streetlights are
needed,
rather than adding to the on-going $2,000,000 annual cost of
streetlights that
keeps growing year after year.  In the next
3 years, as the 3-year leases expire on the lights in our existing
inventory,
we could substantially reduce the $2,000,000 annual cost of
streetlights by
returning unneeded streetlights to Duke Energy.
     There is no
excuse for spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on
unneeded
streetlights in the middle of the financial crisis that the City of
Durham now
faces.

Ned Kennington

1415 Pennsylvania Avenue

Durham, NC  27705

919-286-9519

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Request for Street Light Information - Mr. Kennington

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:11:45 -0400

From: Thompson, Terry <Terry.Thompson@ durhamnc. gov>

To: Ned Kennington <nkennington@ juno.com>

CC: Parham, Wesley <Wesley.Parham@ durhamnc. gov>,   
Ahrendsen,
Mark <Mark.Ahrendsen@ durhamnc. gov>

Mr. Kennington,

Street lighting is determined by a number of input variables as

discussed in great length in the U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration "Roadway Lighting Handbook" which can be

purchased at www.criterionpress. com/viewdetails. cfm?ID=20
and the

American National Standard "Roadway Lighting" book which can be

purchased at www.techstreet. com/cgi-bin/ detail?product
id=739518.  A

copy of these books are also available for review in the City of Durham

Transportation Office.  You may contact the Receptionist at 560-4366 to

set up an appointment.

Attached is a sample of a lighting plan for a typical "residential

street" that was generated by a lighting software program.  The

information contained on this plan can be found in the books referenced

above.

Also attached is the previously provided Street Light Program Guidelines

and Procedures and City of Durham Street Lighting Policy.

Terry Thompson

Terry S. Thompson

Street Light Program Administrator

101 City Hall Plaza

Durham, North Carolina  27701

919-560-4366 x 315 (phone)

919-560-4561 (fax)

Terry.Thompson@ durhamnc. gov

(SOME INTERVENING MESSAGES OMITTED)

-----Original Message-----

From: Ned Kennington [mailto:nkennington@ juno.com]

Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:29 PM

To: Thompson, Terry

Subject: National standards

Ms. Thompson,

      At the City Council Work Session yesterday, you cited "national

standards" that require street lights to be placed no more than 150 feet

apart.  I request to examine any records in your possession or in

possession of the City of Durham that describe such standards.  I make

this request under the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 132,

Public Records.

Thank you,

Ned Kennington

1415 Pennsylvania Ave

Durham, NC 27705

919-286-9519

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *

Dear neighbors,

    It is understandable that you might believe that streetlights
reduce crime.  Most people believe that streetlights reduce crime. 
Until recently, I myself believed that streetlights reduce crime.

    In fact, there is no good evidence that streetlights reduce crime.

    The spokesman for the City government on this issue, Police Captain
Phillip Williams, has agreed, after careful study, that there is no
good evidence that streetlights reduce crime[1].  The Police Department
expert crime analysts studied this issue for several weeks; they cited
a number of studies; but the best they could come up with was a finding
that streetlights make people FEEL safer, not that streetlights
actually reduce crime.[2]

    A proponent of streetlights has said that for every study I come up
with that shows that streetlights do not reduce crime, he can come up
with a study that says they do reduce crime.  These studies might be
equally impressive to someone who knows nothing about research
methodology, but to someone who does understand this kind of research,
all the studies that show that streetlights reduce crime have fatal
flaws.  

    People can cast magic voodoo spells to drive away crime, and if
they keep doing that long enough, eventually crime will go down after
one of those magic spells.  This does not prove that voodoo reduces
crime.

    I am not asking anyone to accept MY judgment about what is a good
study and what is a fatally flawed study.  I am not asking anyone to
accept the judgment of an organization that is opposed to streetlights,
such as the International Dark Sky Association. 

    I am suggesting that we should accept the judgments of professional
scientists who work for crime-fighting organizations that one would
expect to be biased IN FAVOR of streetlights, if they are biased at
all.  Following normal scientific practice, these researchers express
their judgments in published papers so that other scientists can
critique or replicate their findings.

    The definitive studies on streetlights and crime have been carried
out over many years by the U.S. Department of Justice, and its English
counterpart, the British Home Office.  These papers are reviews of all
the studies that have ever been done on streetlights to determine the
current state of knowledge in that area.  These reviews apply standards
of scientific rigor, and they eliminate studies without proper
experimental design, control groups, statistical analysis, measurement
design, etc.

   The Department of Justice studies[3] conclude that there is no good
evidence that streetlights reduce crime.  The Home Office study[4]
concludes that investing in streetlights can reduce crime, but only in
the same way that any investment in an impoverished community such as
improved landscaping, paving or signage can increase community pride
and cohesion.  They conclude that that the light cast by streetlights
does not reduce crime.

   The idea that streetlights reduce crime is a superstition- -It is NOT
a fact.

    It is perfectly acceptable for Durham to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars every year to satisfy citizens' superstitions,
just as it is OK to spend money to give citizens other things they want
that are not essential, like fireworks, street festivals, museums,
recreational facilities, etc.   But it is NOT OK to impose streetlights
on the majority of people who live on a block just because one person
on the block believes the superstition that streetlights reduce crime. 
This is what Durham's "crime prevention" streetlight program does,
based on the claim that streetlights reduce crime.[5]

    The Watts Hospital-Hillandale Neighborhood Association has proposed
a simple democratic procedure for installing streetlights that is very
close to the City's latest proposed procedure.  In fact, City staff
have agreed that there is NO DIFFERENCE between our proposed procedure
and the City's proposed procedure unless someone objects to a
streetlight[ 6].  City staff have repeatedly stated that this NEVER
HAPPENS.[7]   We are just asking that if this event that "never
happens" does occur, the City merely ADD our proposed democratic
procedures to the procedures proposed by the City. Our proposed
procedures satisfy all the City's stated objectives with minimal
administrative burden.  We are even open to considering adding
procedures that would allow the Police Department to override
residents' preferences in emergency situations.  

    I suspect that that the reason Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge wants
to continue to claim that streetlights reduce crime, in spite of the
fact that his own experts acknowledge that this is not true, is that he
wants to continue to make all the decisions regarding
"crime-prevention" streetlights without EVER having to take into
account residents' preferences.

    It is inexcusable that the Police Department should claim that
streetlights reduce crime in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary that they have not been able to rebut.

   It is not sufficient for the Police Department to claim that their
cadre of crime analysts don't have the expertise to address this
question.  We are a world-class city surrounded by world-class
universities.  The City has available to it the vast resources of
national professional associations devoted to these issues.

    If there is good evidence that streetlights reduce crime, the City
should provide that evidence.  If the City cannot show that
streetlights reduce crime, then the City should use democratic
procedures for determining where streetlights are located.

    We are way past the time when Durham city government can be guided
by the principle that we are ignorant and proud of it.

 (Note that the City of Durham spends more than $1,900,000 per year on
streetlights. )

Footnotes
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *

[1] Email message from Captain Phillip Williams of the Durham Police
Department to Ned Kennington dated July 17, 2008.

[2] Malcolm Ramsay and Rosemary Newton, The Effect of Better Street
Lighting on Crime and Fear: A Review, Crime Prevention Unit Paper
No. 29, 1991, London: Home Office, quoted by Durham Police Captain
Phillip Williams in email to Ned Kennington dated June 25, 2008.

[3] J M  Tien; V F O'Donnell ; Barnett A I  and P B Mirchandani, Street
Lighting Projects - National Evaluation Program Phase I Report,
1979, US Dept of Justice, NCJ Number: 47011, and

Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck,
Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway, Preventing Crime: What Works, What
Doesn't, What's Promising: A Report To the United States Congress,  1997,
NCJ 165366

[4] David P. Farrington and Brandon C. Welsh, Effects of improved
street lighting on crime: a systematic review, 2002, Home Office
Research Study 251

[5] Oral comments by Mark Ahrendsen, Manager of the Durham
Transportation Division, during a meeting with WHHNA representatives on
February 17, 2009.

[6] Oral comments by Terry Thompson, Durham Street Light Program
Administrator, during a meeting with WHHNA representatives on February
17, 2009.

[7] For example, in comments by Terry Thompson, Durham Street Light
Program Administrator, and Deputy Chief of Police Ron Hodge before the
City Council Work Session on July 24, 2008.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *****

Ned Kennington

1415 Pennsylvania Avenue

Durham, NC  27705

919-286-9519

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ___

Click here to find the perfect picture with our powerful photo search features.

    __._,_.___

            Messages in this topic           (1)

            Reply           (via web post)
          | 

          Start a new topic        

                Messages  
            |    Files  
            |    Photos  
            |    Links  
            |    Database  
            |    Polls  
            |    Members  
            |    Calendar  

      MARKETPLACE

            From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods

      Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 

      Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional 

        Visit Your Group 
       |

        Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use       |

        Unsubscribe       

	      		Recent Activity

       1
      New Members

		Visit Your Group	      

                      Yahoo! News 
Get it all here 
Breaking news to 
entertainment news                  

                      New business? 
Get new customers. 
List your web site 
in Yahoo! Search.                  

                      Yahoo! Groups 
Dogs Owners Group 
Join Do More For Dogs 
pet community                  

	  .

	__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090226/dcc2f262/attachment.htm>