Set G, Good Lighting Slide Set:

Set G

A car sales lot. In many cities, these locations offer some excellent examples of bad lighting, as this one does. Glare, clutter, overkill. It need not be so, and examples exist of excellent, high quality car dealership lighting (see slides in other IDA sets for examples). Such lighting also saves a great deal of energy and money for the dealership, as lighting is used rather than wasted. In addition, the neighbors do not complain, as they so often do for miles around the type of installation shown in this slide. With good lighting, we all win.
Another bill board (see the one in the Standard Slide Set), seen from the side. Lots of wasted light! This one is in Australia. Bad lighting is universal.
Another view of the same installation.
A billboard installation seen from above. This one is lit from below. It would be similar to the ones in Slides 2 and 3. The slide is really "underexposed," for the street just above the billboard in the slide is a major interstate freeway, and it has excellent lighting, nearly full cut off and of adequate illumination. It is easy to see how much energy the billboard is wasting. Top mounted lighting for billboards can do an excellent job.
A street lit with globes, if one can imagine such a thing. Look at the light trespass and the glare. Add some rain and the glare would be so bad that motorists would be blinded.
A major street in San Francisco. Antique-like fixtures, with high wattage HPS lighting, "so as to get enough light on the street for safety and security." Not so, as there is so much glare and harsh light. It is not a comfortable area at night: notice all the people around. Better lighting would be more attractive to people, actually attracting them, be safer and more secure, and save a great deal of energy and tax money.
Another example of glare. Is visibility helped or harmed? Does the place "feel good"? Is this a quality design? Is it wasting energy?
A rather typical example of street lighting in some towns. The light is in a tree, lighting the leaves, but not much else. Why do we tolerate such installations?
Another glary street light doing a good job of lighting a tree but not much else. It has a lot of glare though, and doesn't do much to help visibility.
One of the 175 watt mercury vapor lighting fixtures, mounted on a wall so that one can see the distribution pattern of the light output. What fraction of such output would you estimate is being wasted? This fixture is a terrible source of glare and waste in almost all installations. It is discussed in some detail in a number ofthe IDA information sheets, including one titled "Why We Don't Like the 175 Watt Mercury Fixture."
An advertisement for such a fixture. Talk about false advertising. It is very counterproductive to real security, as discussed in the information sheets and in the caption to one of the slides in the Standard Set. While it can be bought for less than $20 in many cases, it costs about $70 or more per year in electricity tooperate. Would not a much better fixture (no glare, no harsh shadows, uniform distribution of light, etc), costing $70 to buy but only $10 a year to operate, make more sense?
One of the 175 watt mercury lamps in use. It is an old one, and the light output is way down from when it was installed (not to speak of the dirt that has collected), but it is still using the same amount of energy. It was never very good, it is terrible now.
One of the 175 mercury lamps being used for street lighting. Aren't you glad that that is not your house? Think of the energy and tax money waste, all in addition to the light trespass, glare, and sky glow.
Two of the mercury lamps mounted on the same pole. These fixtures are everywhere; wouldn't it be nice if they all got replaced with good ones?
The two non-cut off lights on the same pole compared to the headlights of an automobile. The exposure could be longer, but then it would be very glary. In any case, the amount of glare from the two is about the same. Not good street lighting.
Here one of the bad guys has been replaced with a full cut off HPS fixture. Much better lighting, much lower energy use.
An expensive fixture being used for parking lot lighting. In spite of the high cost, the light control is not good, and it has a lot of glare, up light, and energy waste. This was an installation in Tucson, and it violated the City's Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance. It was replaced, after neighbor protests about the bad light and astronomer's protest about the uplight and the ordinance violation.
The new lighting at the installation shown in Slide 17. Much better lighting control, more effective for the task, no neighbor complaints, and happy astronomers.
Two "semi-cut off" lighting fixtures used for street lighting. Full cut off would be much better, giving very good lighting control and no glare (much less than these semi-cut off ones have). Many communities are changing to the full cut off fixtures, particularly for ail new installations.
A special shield added to the semi-cut off fixture to block up light and to minimize glare. It works. However, a better solution, whenever possible, is to switch the whole fixture to a well designed full cut off fixture, one in which the reflector in the fixture is producing excellent control of the light output, including eliminating any glare and up light.