Hey, there! Log in / Register
Zakim Bridge to go dark for a long time, maybe forever
By adamg on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 3:46pm
The turnpike authority is canning the lights to save money - and is considering shutting off every fourth light in the Big Dig tunnels - the Globe reports, adding, however, the authority will continue to splurge on those red lights that keep planes from crashing into the bridge.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Anyone know how much that
Anyone know how much that thing costs to light? Its aweful that its being shut off, its so nice looking, and has become one of our best night icons. Ive seen it in the back drops of many major cable news programs and other shows when Boston comes up.
$5,000 a month
At least, that's what the article says.
Sorry , I should have read
Sorry , I should have read the article!
Red light/green light
How about we make them like the weather lights in the old Hancock building - in years when the state has a deficit they blink red and green in the years we have a surplus. Oh - wait, I think that means they'll be red forever. In the immortal words of Roseann Rosannadanna - NEVER MIND!
As unfortunate as it is that the Pike will be
shutting off the (purely decorative) lighting illuminating the Zakim Bridge, as a driver who often uses I-93 through Boston, it's far more disconcerting to me that they're also proposing to shut off some of the lighting that illuminates the travel lanes in the tunnels themselves.
One light in four shut off - that's a 25% reduction in the ambient tunnel light level folks.
Bright Idea
I have long thought that the illumination in the tunnel and on the bridge is excessive - especially how blinding it is to suddenly change from outdoor darkness to bright tunnel lighting.
Perhaps they could cut the lighting by half at the ends of the tunnel, and by a quarter next and then by zero in the middle. That would produce a gradual change so that you don't get blinded when entering or exiting.
The way the tunnel lighting is set up is so
that the entrance portal is intentionally very bright, then the lighting level slowly decreases until a fixed point beyond the tunnel entrance, at which point it remains a steady level through most of the tunnel. At the other end of the tunnel, the lighting level then increases again from a fixed point until the very bright exit portal.
The theory behind this is to help drivers make an easier transition from bright daylight to dark tunnel back to bright daylight.
Unfortunately, as you and I have both observed, they obviously didn't make allowances in the design to enable the light levels to be properly dimmed at night.
One other thing that I've always found curious is that the overhead signs in the tunnel, which are made out of retro-reflective materials, are also illuminated with external "spot" lighting. Given the close confines of the tunnel walls and ceiling, it seems to me that even a single car should provide enough ambient illumination to enable the signs to be easily read without the need for external lighting. After all, this is the way overhead signs work on all other Massachusetts freeways (i.e. no external illumination).
Who needs an instantly
Who needs an instantly recognizable, iconic landmark when you're a world-class city? Honestly, couldn't they have the lights on for just a couple of hours after dark, maybe on weekends at least? What's going to appear behind Doris Kearns Goodwin during her live feeds?
Why they're really turning out the lights: A theory
As good as any other: It's really a giant F-You to the state from the authority's soon to be ex-executive directory, Mike Mennonno writes:
This is the same problem I
This is the same problem I have with the Governor when he says ignore the "trivial" things.
In the whole scheme of things the lights on the Zakim are also "trivial" but they are also highly symbolic and highly visible. While I applaud any attempt to bring down the budget, even in the smallest ways (In my office I am the guy who is always "recycling" paper clips, I know their cheap but we've been using the same box for almost a year now) but sometimes you just have to accept minor, although structurally unneeded, costs. Its kind of like when your in the dating world, you do not need a car or even a nice car (in my opinion) but if you do have a car you really should look into getting that big dent removed from the passenger side door. Sure its not rusting over and it doesnt affect the performance of the car but its the first thing she sees everytime she gets into your car... Its the same thing with the Zakim, it literally is the positive face of the Big Dig (until that greenway is complete) and I really feel that it is important for it to stand out lest we forget that the Big Dig actually had some positive side affects.
It's become such a gorgeous fixture on the Boston skyline
I think there should be a few hours of evening lighting. It would be a shame to shut the lights down altogether.
That's agreed, anon.
However, there's also another reason why the Zakim Bridge shouldn't go dark at night: people drive along that bridge 24/7, and making that bridge go dark means that the bridge would not be as safe for driving on during the evening hours and at night. Not good.
lolwut?
They're not talking about turning off the streetlights. They're talking about turning out the spotlights of color shooting up the sides of the two monolith supports and cabling.
Yeh, but in either case....
Why?!?
city slicker
Cars are pretty thoroughly lit up these days and have headlights that seem to work quite well - in fact better than they used to. I found them to be more than adequate when traveling at night on winding mountain roads through an area larger than Eastern MA but with 1,800 people. These are the kinds of places that are so dark that you get overwhelmed by the milky way, and, yet, driving at night is perfectly safe.
Beam power is pretty high these days. When I was a kid and lived in those vast unpopulated expanses, we had to cut speed to not outrun the beams on winding roads. I found the new halogens to be much better for picking off the fog stripes well ahead of the vehicle at 55mph.
You don't need intensive lighting to drive at night and be safe. In fact, too much lighting can be actually be unsafe if it makes it difficult to see the lights of the other cars around you.
A bit off the Zakim Bridge topic, but
I've also driven on I-495, going north towards Marlborough and Lowell. That strip of I-495 is totally dark--with no lights at all. That's not good, either.
Don't you have headlights?
Don't you have headlights?
Of course I've got headlights.
My gut instinct would ordinarily be to use my high beams while driving in much darker areas, but since that stretch of I-495 is built in such a way that one can see the oncoming cars from the other side of I-495, the use of one's high beams is often not possible.
Not totally dark
Totally dark = no lights around, anywhere.
That strip of I-495 is not totally dark or even close: it simply doesn't have any lighting specific to it. That isn't the same as "totally dark" by any stretch of the imagination. Between the general urban light pollution, the lit buildings in the area, etc. there is a heck of a lot more light than you get in many areas of the US where cars with headlights do just fine.
Try I-80 near the Nebraska/Wyoming border at midnight in December - a place where the "exits" are where dirt roads cross the interstate at a 90 degree angle. Or any mountainous place with very little population that is not near anywhere that makes light pollution - Eastern Oregon and Washington, Utah/Nevada, Northern California, Colorado and New Mexico. Heck, even British Columbia and Alberta and Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Try northern Maine and New Bruinswick while we are at it. Cars do fine in all these places - trucks certainly do to - with just the headlights they travel with.
If you can't see the Milky Way in great detail, it isn't dark. When we were staying in Fossil, Oregon, I got my kids out for a night walk and one of them just fell to the ground because he was so overwhelmed by the stars.
Of course, you might not be comfortable driving on roads like that in places like this after dark and that is understandable. You have to know your limits. That doesn't mean that the light levels that you are accustomed to are good or even necessary. Very few US roads are lit to the extreme levels that the Zakim seems to be, nor do they need to be. Our cars themselves are designed to operate in true total darkness and get us where we are going in one piece, provided the driver is up to the task - even if roads in Eastern MA rarely require us to use their full capabilities.
When I drive through darker areas,
I often use my high beams, and put them back down again when I see the lights of an oncoming car, but, as I pointed out in another post, there are situations where the use of one's high beams isn't possible.