White Rock Lake lights update — 2/24/09

chiptex, says:

Actually, the White Rock Lake Foundation never proposed 600+ light poles over 10 miles of trail. They proposed putting some lights on docks, some parking lots and some "dark places" on the trail (not sure what that means at night). As indicated on their website:

"Funds are needed to install lighting throughout White Rock Lake- in the parking lots, trail areas that may be less visible and dock and pier areas."

http://www.whiterocklakefoundation.or...

So the 10 mile light show must have been something the lighting consultants/ contractors dreamed up as their own "economic stimulus" project.

xdavidwattsx, says:

Aren't West Lawther and East Lawther designated as public streets and are subject to city street light codes and not park lighting guidelines?

Why would we want to remove city street lights and ship them to Bishop Arts? Riddle me the logic of spending good money to undo work. Sounds like flushing money down the toilet.

Additionally, why would we want to make the parking lots at the lake "no parking"? Last I checked the lake is public property and improvements have been paid for by public tax dollars. Doesn't the public have the right to use the lake and any and all parking lots or trails?

I don't understand the regressive approach here. The improvements made at the lake over the years have made it a very popular place for recreational purposes. Property values have skyrocketed and the lake has gone from a craphole in the 90's to the jewel of the city.

And now we want to take 2 steps backwards??

chiptex, says:

None of the West Lawther light poles are on city street right of way. They are on the shoreline trail and the parking lots.

City streets require a light at corners, so not applicable here, nor is that in the plan.

These shoreline lights were DOA at the public hearing. Parks Department has already agreed to remove them and use them elsewhere.

City code does not require parking lots to be lit - unless they serve a specific nighttime use - such at the Dog Park. Otherwise, not required.

The shoreline is intrinsically dark - it has never been lit up - the park is primarily a natural area. Not a Walmart parking lot.

Read the reports at this site for more details http://www.ladycdesign.com/WRL

xdavidwattsx, says:

You still didn't answer any of my questions. Why do we want to spend money to remove lights? Leave them there as far as I'm concerned.

You never gave me any reason in which we should designate lake parking lots as "No Parking" and spend money to enforce that.

And I think the thousands of people out on the trails every day and night running, biking and walking would argue that it's a recreational area first. They far outnumber anyone out there just looking at birds which you probably wouldn't do at night anyway.

So I ask you again why the regressive approach? We build trails to bring people and give them something to use and now we want to spend money to chase them away? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

chiptex, says:

Parks made a mistake putting the wrong lights in the wrong place on West Lawther. They have admitted it and are going to move them to a more appropriate location. Money allocated, they are gone.

Nothing "regressive" about all this - the trails have never been lit.

Most trail usage is daytime. At night bikes are required by law to carry lights. Walkers and joggers can do the same. Or, if they prefer, go to a lit trail - such as the Katy Trail, that is patrolled.

Problem with the White Rock trails is that they are rarely patrolled at night by the Bike Patrol, since the evening shift has to respond to 9-11 calls outside of the park - so it would be grossly irresponsible to give the "perception of safety" that lights give (per the consultants) - without the reality of bike patrols. No can do.

Details on all this here - http://www.ladycdesign.com/WRL

xdavidwattsx, says:

It's regressive because money has already been allotted for this project and the lights have been redesigned for trail illumination without light pollution. The initial design was poor and since then the lights have been very much improved to find a compromising solution. They are shorter poles and push light downward where it belongs.

Why are we undoing progress? More trails are going to continue to be built at and near the lake in the coming years and more people will continue to use the lake. During the hot summer months and dark winter months, a lot of trail usage occurs in the darkness. Why are we telling people to go somewhere else when the lake is the best recreational spot in the city?

I don't understand the regressive "can't do" attitude that we continue to adopt. People that use the lake want this, the funds are there and the design is effective. Move forward and create solutions.

chiptex, says:

The street lights on West Lawther are going to be removed. The money allocated and future bond money is going to be spent repairing, replacing, or removing the non-conforming lights in the parking lots - all the way around the lake. That's the consensus priority.

http://www.ladycdesign.com/Docs/WRL_O...

If you ride bike at night, get a light; it's the law. If you walk or jog, get a light; it's common sense.

xdavidwattsx, says:

Consensus from who? All of the people out at the lake at night that I'm talking to all want trail lights. They know the impracticality and ineffectiveness of running with a light powerful enough to see the trail in front of you on dark night.

If you are going to include links, please make them from a nonbiased source. Thanks.

chiptex, says:

The priority will be to repair, remove, replace lights in parking lots in the park. Should be an improvement.

Lighting 10 miles of un-patrolled trails is not going to happen in this park.

Get one of these - they work great -

http://www.roundcube.co.uk/product/85...

chiptex, says:

Good point. All dock lights get replaced in the plan. Down-lights replace the floods (some of which don't work). A big improvement over the floods - less glare, white full spectrum lights similar to the ones on the Mockingbird pedestrian bridge.

Note that fishing is one of the few "defense of prosecution" exceptions to the midnight curfew - meaning you could fish past midnight. Ditto sailing at night - exempt from curfew- but don't tell !

Clay213, says:

'If you ride bike at night, get a light; it's the law.'

Uhm. You obviously don't do much cycling at night. Most lights are designed for a cyclist to be seen by vehicles on roads. NOT to illuminate a dark path or trail. They barely offer much in the way of illumination on a fairly well lit street.

Lighting systems for riding in darkness(as in with no other lighting available) cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

Trail lighting could be achieved at low cost and low light pollution with LED lighting. Low maintenance and could be powered with solar energy captured during the day.

chiptex, says:

Good bike headlights cost - but are worth it if you ride a lot at night. And they certainly do light up the road. So a matter of how much you value your safety.

Lighting projects in the park are a matter of priorities. There are a dozen parking lots and buildings in the park that have really bad lighting. Plus the docks. So all of those lights have to be replaced, repaired or removed first. That has been agreed on.

All of those locations are wired, so one way to use "solar" would be for the City to buy wind-power as part of its energy mix. Will enquire about that.

Some of the members of the Task Force recommended using LED lighting - and the consultants rejected it out of hand as being too expensive for the applications - down lights in parking lots, etc. - with "full spectrum" low wattage lights.

This plan focuses on prioritizing lighting projects. There is not enough money left from the '06 bonds to re-do half the lights in the park (if that). So by the time the next bond package goes out ('10), the cost of LED and use of solar (wind) may be feasible.

xdavidwattsx, says:

I don't have any problem with parking lots and dock areas being given first priority in improving lights. Every project must have phases to be effectively executed. However, I take strong issue with the idea of NO LIGHTS on the trail at all. Compromise is a beautiful thing and us night time lake users want and need lights. Those headlights are completely impractical and any user will tell you as much. Like Clay said, the only purpose they serve is being seen by cars. Not lighting up the pitch black night to stumble over each other. Lights that emit a downward illumination (as proposed by the consultants in the revised plan) are perfectly acceptable.

You say the lake has never been lit and so it shouldn't be. But the lake never had a pedestrian bridge near Mockingbird. It never had 12 foot wide trails near Lawther. It never had lookouts and extra water fountains and things that all of us use every single day until the city implemented them in the last 10 years. Are you telling me that they should all be torn out as well?

People want to use the lake and people run and bike at night. Trail lighting is a practical solution that the parks board and WRL groups have pushed for and had approved in past bonds. Let's not screw up progress. We're doing great things at the lake and there's no good reason to undo that.

Clay213, says:

LED lighting specifically for the trail would be simple and cheap. Think of something along the lines of the lighting on the edge of movie theater or airplane aisles.

Or the small solar powered lights people use to light their walkway at their house except with LED bulbs that don't burn out. Low energy, low cost, and put a few solar cells on the top and everything is good to go.

No light pollution because they are localized.

I'm not going to argue about bike lights but suffice to say the kinds of lights you are talking about cost more than the average person's bike.

chiptex, says:

One member of the Task Force has pushed for exactly what you suggest - LEDs near the trail like footlights - even tied to motion detectors - such that the trail is light up ahead of a walker/ jogger etc. (He is an ex TI engineer so go figure) Unfortunately, the staff do not think that far ahead. But when the cost of LEDs come down, etc. some sort of motion- detecting lighting could be considered.

We have pushed for motion detectors on all lights -but the problem is that it takes too long for the ballasts to warm up / lights to come on, so no can do, until a long life/ low cost lighting instant-on system is available.

Note that the Master Plan (which is not funded!) can anticipate the use of LED and motion detectors - when and if a project gets installed. And we will add that as a consideration - I suggested as much today and someone pointed out that if all the lights are on motion detectors - the park would "twinkle" at night like a Christmas tree. . ..

chiptex, says:

PARD has no money and no plans to light any of the trail. Docks will get re-lit, some parking lots, most buildings - over a long time. Should be a big improvement. Most of the 200 acre park will be preserved as a nice dark sky oasis. Bring a flashlight.