Ludington Street Lights: Off and On

[XLFD]

As learned at last Monday's Downtown Ludington Board (DDA) meeting, the DDA plans on replacing downtown lights in the 100 blocks of Ludington Avenue and South James Street, three blocks with 24 existing light posts each, at a cost of about $26,000.  Currently, each post sports two lamps, that use higher wattage bulbs than the one's envisioned. 

DPW Chief Stickney was present and assured the assemblage that the new fixtures would pay for themselves in less than five years from the costs of electricity alone.  Via a FOIA request, the Ludington Torch received his Downtown Street Light Replacement.pdf calculations, which seem to be grounded in mathematical accuracy when one looks at the specs of the replacement light being a Lumecon Ring of Fire High Output type 5 model (Lumecon Information.pdf).

It was learned that the city already has three prototypes on display, paired with the current lamps.  You can see these in front of Old Hamlin Restaurant on West Ludington Avenue:

One by the Ludington Hallmark store on East Ludington Avenue:

And one in front of the stately former Ludington State Bank:

Made famous by its appearance in the movie "Thirty Minutes or Less" complete with old-style lamps:

Part of the charm of the new street lights would be less maintenance because of the long lasting LED lights that provide the illumination for 90,000 hours until replacement is needed, and that the light can be better directed downward, which is important if you live downtown but are annoyed at glaring street lights just outside your window. 

I waited downtown last week for the lights to come on at night to check the differences, this picture was taken in the James Street Plaza just before the lights came out:

The Lumecon lights appeared to come on first and be a little bit brighter when viewed from the street.  This is the view in front of the Hallmark Store after both lights turned on:

But the two other light posts under review, had the older fixture inoperative, as seen at the bank:

In fact, in the area where the City's DDA plans to install these new Lumecons, there were a total of seven of the old bulbs burned out among the 21 in total.  As one travels up the length of South James Street, covering the five blocks between Loomis and Dowland where there are three lamp posts on either side, 23 of the 60 street light fixtures are out.  Twenty of those are on the west side of James in a continuous line covering over three block, making it effectively the 'dark side' of James Street.  Note in the following picture the lack of lighting on the left:

Getting new fixtures that use the energy-saving and maintenance-saving technology of LED lights is a sound idea, particularly when the expenditure will be recovered in under five years.  Having fixtures that aim light more towards where its needed, and away from where it's not, is also a capital idea.  The introduction of such lights would also seem to make the Ludington DPW's poor record of keeping the street torches burning downtown minimalized, since they won't have to change the lights but once every 20 years. 

Hopefully, the City leaders will decide to keep the lights up that long if they purchase them, instead of changing them out when they decide they need another change.

[AQUAMAN]

So, what have I been saying about infrastructure, (maintenance), for a long time here? Changing out simple light bulbs for city streets even seems to be too much of a chore for the COL DPW. Now they even have 23 out of 60 lights burned out. And if that isn't enough laziness, now let's buy new light fixtures for $26,000 so they won't have to change the bulbs as often. It's incredible and amazing that this continues, and the remedy is always spend even more money to facilitate and promote even more laziness, and lack of safety for the local citizens. And the ride to folly continues in Ludington.

[XLFD]

Maybe you didn't notice in the one cost calculation link, but it takes over $2000 just to maintain the lights each year just for those three blocks, that doesn't include energy costs, just the cost of replacing burnt out bulbs.  It's a given fact that we will have to live with that our current and past city management people are negligent on infrastructure repairs, getting low maintenance lights is the way to go with these low maintenance wights. 

Going to lower wattage LED lighting will irrefutably pay for itself over time, a relatively short time.  But as we have seen with the Ludington DDA, their tastes are fickle, as showcased in the numerous reworkings of the James Street Plaza and downtown sidewalks.  They may decide they like the old lights better once these are put up, or worse, decide a different style would be better after these are all installed, in which case the electrical and maintenance savings would not factor in.

[Willy]

It's hard to argue against improving something especially if saves money. I guess I'm just cynical when it comes to trusting Government. If this is such a money saver then why hasn't it been proposed before this?  This entire situation sounds like my mother in law who goes shopping and spends a $1000 on sales items in order to save $100.

[Willy]

I agree with Aquaman. The City is spending $26,000 for light fixtures when they only need 23 bulbs and a ladder. There is a huge lack of common sense in the minds of those who have been trusted to run the city?  More money to burn. I guess that's what we should all do. Instead of replacing burned out bulbs, we should replace our lamps and fixtures. Makes sense to me.

[XLFD]

The City may find it cost prohibitive to change the light bulbs currently when they burn out, until there is 'enough' of them to justify the added expense.  It takes two city workers to change a light bulb, and since they work during the business day, they can't really check how many bulbs are out, probably until one of the city 'leaders' notices or someone else lodges a strident complaint with the city.

A point of clarification in the original article, the three blocks where the new bulbs will go in will only have one fixture per lamppost instead of the two that exist now.  It's not clear whether they will make the rest of the lampposts around downtown eventually conform to these blocks' lighting fixtures, but they did infer that they wanted these three blocks to look like the 'core' downtown area and set it apart from the rest.

[stump]

Well I hope when they change out the lights for the new type they take the good bulbs out the old lights and put them into the remaining lights that are burned out.But then that would be simple.

[XLFD]

I can see the City intelligentsia  not wanting to install 'used lights' in burned out fixtures because the cost of removal/installation is a bit higher than a replacement bulb ($40); so if the used bulb is to go out in, for example, half the time as a new bulb, there may be some actual savings involved by using new bulbs.

Recycling the lights would be a bright idea if the City could figure out a way to change them without renting a truck for the task at over $2000 a year and paying exorbitant hourly rates for the unskilled labor it takes to change a bulb.

[XLFD]

Just as an aside, the $17,000+ per year spent just on labor and unnecessary truck rental for replacing these lights is more than what it would cost to have an unskilled worker working full time at minimum wage for the whole year who uses his own truck and ladder.

One would think they could get around the prevailing wage laws if they had a non-public entity like the Chamber of Commerce or CVB contract out this duty and have one or two people  go out every other month or so and base their payment on how many burned out lights they switch out.  An interesting recent well written article on prevailing wage is here, showing how such laws can create a fiscal hardship to municipalities who are in areas where lower costs of living is the norm, like Ludington.

[shinblind]

Is there any reason why they could NOT put LED bulbs in the old fixtures?

It would have to cost less than $26K and the energy savings would be the same.

[AQUAMAN]

That's a good thought shinblind, but I doubt the bulbs are compatible. You know, when you look and think about the existent light fixtures, I see a Victorian/Antique effect/theme in them, making them more appeasing to the eye than the new ones proposed. I think that's why they were bought to begin with. It could have been part of the James St. Plaza project. Last time I reported a bulb burned out in my business area, I was told to go to the city to attend a light and streets committee mtg. to address the issue. Is that really how the COL complaint section should work? You try to report, in good faith, a tiny problem, and are told to spend your time in a committee to make it known? After that last instance, I just ignored the burned out bulbs. Maybe that's why others aren't reporting it too. Lastly, in all fairness to the DPW workers, perhaps it's their work schedule duties by their boss that prohibits them from replacing bulbs regularly. If they don't get the assignment, then they can't schedule the work. So, who's overlooking this as the boss? And who does the DPW boss report to? Is it Shyster Shay? Is someone telling the DPW boss to refrain from doing this maintenance in order to get the new lights on order? Something here sounds a bit fishy to me. If the old light fixtures, not that old anyhow, and quite elegant, have good fixtures to replace the bulbs now, then why spend the lousy $26,000 for this when it's not necessary. Go replace some 100 year old plumbing is what I say, and leave well enough alone for God's sake!

[AQUAMAN]

NEWSFLASH: It was just told to a friend of mine, that the DPW relies on the LPD to report fixture bulb outages, as they work nights. This sound silly to anyone else but me? Now it's the cop's duties to report outages, instead of a routine maintenance program that is replacing bulbs and fixtures regularly? No wonder....stupidities beyond imagination around Ludville! Never ends......

[Willy]

How many cops does it take to report an inoperable lightbulb. Answer. 6 - one to call in the broken bulb and five to beat the crap out of the maintenance worker who changes it.