Big streetlight switch-off moves a step closer (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Big streetlight switch-off moves a step closer
9:34am Thursday 30th August 2012 in News
By Mark Stead, Political Reporter
THE next steps have been revealed in a scheme which will see streetlights across North Yorkshire being switched off overnight in a bid to save council bosses £400,000 a year.
North Yorkshire County Council is planning to turn off more than half of the region’s lights – not including those in York – between midnight and 5am, when traffic levels are at their lowest, as part of moves to cut costs.
The authority says the move will also reduce carbon emissions by a fifth. The first phase of the scheme will concentrate on Harrogate, Knaresborough and Scarborough and is scheduled for completion by the end of the year once public consultations for all three areas come to an end.
A timetable for the rest of the project, which will go before a council scrutiny committee next week, shows Hambleton and Richmondshire would be next in line for overnight switch-offs.
The process would take place between next May and March, 2014. Lights in the Selby district will come in for attention between April, 2014 and March, 2015.
The final phase, between April, 2015 and March, 2016, would cover streetlights in Ryedale, although the precise numbers of lights which will be turned off in each area have yet to be confirmed.
The council has already introduced a “part-night” lighting scheme for 230 of the 380 columns on the Selby bypass. This move alone has already cut about £14,500 a year from the overall annual £1.7 million streetlighting bill.
A report by David Bowe, the council’s corporate director for business and environmental services, said the authority was looking at dimming any lights along the Selby bypass which had not been turned off overnight, the cost of which would be recouped through energy savings within four years.
It is also putting new technology into “photo cells” used in Selby and Harrogate’s lights so they recognise GMT and can be turned off strictly between midnight and 5am.
“The council’s main concerns when considering which streetlights will be switched off include the night-time accident record and criminal behaviour,” said Mr Bowe’s report.
“While the primary purpose of road and streetlighting is highway safety, it is acknowledged that fear of crime is an important consideration.
“The council is working closely with the police and others to ensure the proposals will not adversely impact on community safety.”
Lights which will not be switched off at night include those on main roads and junctions, routes with a “significant” night-time accident and injury record, areas with high crime rates, those outside sheltered housing and hospitals, and lights in the busiest parts of town centres.
Comments(27)
Gary Gilmores Eyes
says...
9:43am Thu 30 Aug 12
Surely its saving the council tax payer money not council bosses? It's not thier money!
By the way a poor idea better loosing a few over paid council chiefs than turning street lights off.
Maybe thats the point turn off the lights and save £400K so the council can employ 4 more chiefs!
Pete the Brickie
says...
9:51am Thu 30 Aug 12
North Yorkshire County Council is planning to turn off more than half of the region’s lights – between midnight and 5am, when traffic levels are at their lowest,
Unfortunately between midnight and 5am is also when light levels are at their lowest alongside traffic, to me it rather defeats the object of erecting and maintaining a light if you're going to switch it off in the dark, even for the noble cause of "reducing your carbon emmisions by a fifth".
If the authority wants to save money on electricty they could always try uswitch.com or moneysupermarket to get a cheaper rate from whichever supplier has no doubt being robbing them blind unchecked since Edison invented the light bulb.
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
10:07am Thu 30 Aug 12
who are ya
says...
10:29am Thu 30 Aug 12
Viper_7
says...
10:38am Thu 30 Aug 12
who are ya wrote:indeed....
Ever though Burglaries will increase too with less lighting, so more strain on police force. What is saved in one hand is taken away with the other.
Along with pedestrian/vehicle incidents.
capt spaulding
says...
12:04pm Thu 30 Aug 12
who are ya wrote:The police will not be strained any more than they are now. They have civvy staff to issue crime numbers for your insurance and they dont turn up anyway.
Ever though Burglaries will increase too with less lighting, so more strain on police force. What is saved in one hand is taken away with the other.
If you havnt worked it out by now, hear a bump in the night and some scroat is in your kitchen dont waste time doin a 999 your on your own.
myselby
says...
12:16pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Oncebitten
says...
12:25pm Thu 30 Aug 12
growthorgreed
says...
3:32pm Thu 30 Aug 12
york100
says...
3:57pm Thu 30 Aug 12
telos
says...
4:23pm Thu 30 Aug 12
R'Marcus
says...
4:41pm Thu 30 Aug 12
The police don't care about the local people, do they?
Guy Fawkes
says...
5:37pm Thu 30 Aug 12
tomdobson
says...
6:43pm Thu 30 Aug 12
wonder what my council tax is paying for then.
No crime in this area either that I know of.
Alf Garnett
says...
6:59pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Ighting. There is absolutely no correlation between street lighting and crime; more lighting does not reduce crime. Read Jane Jacobs or any urban geographer. In many parts of rural France street Iights go off at 11pm and come again about an hour before most people are getting ready for work. I lived in a village in England which had no street lights and a zero crime and accident rate. People carried torches at night but it didn't stop them going out. When it was put to a local referendum, the majority voted against, preferring dark skies. The village had a population of a couple of thousand and was about eight miles from a major city, so hardly out in the sticks.
twotonethomas
says...
7:40pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Excepting illegal hunting of course.
browbeaten
says...
7:52pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Magicman!
says...
1:43am Fri 31 Aug 12
The main issue is WHY the costs are there in the first place, and the simple answer is specification. Last year, Amey in York replaced a couple of hundred 90w Low Pressure Sodium light units (which consumed about 120w true power per light) and fitted 57w Fluorescent lights to replace them (using about 62w true power) around the Acomb area... the result is a 50% reduction in energy costs whilst improving the Quality of the light (switching from yellow to pure white) - and the same was done in 2012 when about 2,000 mercury lanterns consuming on average 100w true power were replaced by fluorescent lanterns using about 48w true power... York does not have ANY part night switch off scemes in use because of smart specifications (even the new lights that went in to replace failed metal columns on main roads are using about 120w true power when previously the old lights were 170/180w true power) - and where dimming is used (Museum Street, Coney Street, St Helens Square, Spurriergate, Coppergate) the output is not discernable as dimmed to the human eye.
Compare York to North Yorkshire, whereby NYCC signed a contract with Balfour Beatty to replace every concrete column in the county. This gave NYCC an opportunity on a plate to specify low energy Fluorescent or even LED lanterns, so that residential streets got a white light lantern using 50w or less true power replacing an old Low Pressure Sodium or Mercury light which would have been using somewhere between 60w to 150w true power, whilst main roads could have 88w up to 144w true power LED lanterns replacing old Sodium lanterns which had been consuming 120w up to almost 200w true power. Instead what hapened? Balfour Beatty with their love of a particular Philips lantern went to town installing High Pressure Sodium everywhere. Residential streets got their 60w Low Pressure Sodium lanterns replaced with 80w High Pressure Sodium lanterns, an increase in energy consumption without any increase in light quality whatsoever - and the power increase is a similar story on main roads, with High Pressure Sodium still being installed. And it is THIS which is why NYCC now need to make the cuts, as their leccy bill has gone up! Not only that, but the Philips lantern BB chose to install is a right PITA to install, as there is an extra plastic flap that isn't required or necessary but increases the time taken to fit the lantern properly, which means less lights get done in a street in a day, so more man hours required and thus more cost upfront; plus the cost of the lanterns themselves, as Philips lanterns aren't particularly cheap (not like the Fluorescent lights we've got in York, costing just £60 per light!)....
NYCC chose the wrong contractor, simple as that. I'm waiting to see what happens in Sheffield, as Amey have been give a contract there now for streetlighting, in addition to the mass replacement contract in Birmingham which is now seeing the biggest single installation of LED lanterns in one area to date.
Oncebitten
says...
10:09am Fri 31 Aug 12
In the leafy suburb of York that I live in pretty much every driveway has a blinding security light ( most set badly so even if you walk past the end of the driveway you need sunglasses) so why when obviously the public do not think the street lighting was enough anyway do we keep it......I'm all for this cut not just on cost but on light pollution.
Peppa07
says...
10:09am Fri 31 Aug 12
I live in a Ryedale village. The month after we moved from York 24 years ago the street lights went up. I HATE THEM. Let us see the wonder of the night sky! And whover allows the lighting up of Byland Abbey at night should be forced to endure a week of sleep deprivation. Then they'd know what it's like for moths.
Wanderer in Canada
says...
7:55pm Fri 31 Aug 12
On the other side of the argument residential areas with no lighting may not actually see an increase in crime as those with nefarious intent also need light to break into houses. In a darkened street they will be easier to spot, that is assuming that the police will be out patrolling the streets of course.
Magicman!
says...
12:58am Sat 1 Sep 12
Oncebitten wrote:Personally, I would ban these Halogen floodlights because all they do is light up peoples' bedrooms like sports pitches everytime a cat comes around to have a s**t in a garden!
I would like to read and see "real" statistics for crime and lighting....not just readers thoughts!
In the leafy suburb of York that I live in pretty much every driveway has a blinding security light ( most set badly so even if you walk past the end of the driveway you need sunglasses) so why when obviously the public do not think the street lighting was enough anyway do we keep it......I'm all for this cut not just on cost but on light pollution.
When I moved in to my current residence there was one such light over the garage door - it was so badly designed the movement sensor didn't detect anybody approaching the garage (at the back of the house) until they were right under the light, so the previous occupants had the light facing outwards almost horizontally. After just a couple of weeks I took it down and replaced it with a more efficient Fluorescent bulkhead (one of those round lights you can get)... the floodlight got moved to the shed wall and the movement sensor wired to control directional LED lights with the floodlight manually switched for when I need light around the back end of the garden. All it takes is a bit of thought and you can get really good lighting for a fraction of the cost that a halogen floodlight runs up. More lower powered lights at regular spacings is always better than less high power lights.
Thanks for the comment Peppa07.... And I do agree too that completely unlit villages do not have very much crime - partly because the criminals can't see what they're doing, but probably also because such villages don't have chavs! In areas flung out away from hives of activity, not having streetlighting can be fine as normally householders put up some form of light anyway. Acaster Malbis has no public streetlighting and doesn't have any problems, but neither is it really near anywhere!
The problem is when you get half and half, whereby some lighting columns but not all are switched off at night - exactly what NYCC and severl other councils have done as it's the cheapest option. If you look down certain streets (especially in Huntington) you can see the oldest lamp posts at their original 1950's spacing just on junctions and street corners, with newer columns added later as infill because the 1950's spacing wasn't enough for suburban areas - but now with part light switching most streets will go back to the 50's, with just corners and junctions lit up.
A.N.OtherYorkie
says...
4:23am Sat 1 Sep 12
r accounts instead of working,thats where the cuts should start. Well ruined my chance now.
twotonethomas
says...
9:49pm Sat 1 Sep 12
A.N.OtherYorkie wrote:I'm not sure that you quite understand democracy.
Personally I would fit solar cells to the top of each one,that way they would have a chance of getting money back from the electricity company. Far too easy. I bet I have ruined any chance of getting on the council. Isnt that why we are getting solar pannels on our roofs or do the council no better. The council should have them on their roofs to save us footing there staffs facebook,ebay,twitte
r accounts instead of working,thats where the cuts should start. Well ruined my chance now.
If you feel that attacking the council over this particular matter is something that the public supports, why would it ruin your chance of getting on the council?
NYCC elections are next May, I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot :)
Magicman!
says...
12:10am Sun 2 Sep 12
bolero
says...
11:24am Mon 3 Sep 12
roskoboskovic says...
9:37am Thu 30 Aug 12