Hey, there! Log in / Register
City gets grant to turn gaslights off during the day
By adamg on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:28pm
This daytime Beacon Hill scene could soon become a thing of the past.
The City Council voted today to accept a $1 million energy-saving grant from the federal government that includes about $470,000 for installing 600 "auto igniter" devices to turn gaslights off during the day. Currently, all of the city's 2,800 gaslights remain lit 24 hours a way, because there's no way to turn them off and turn them on again.
City Councilor Matt O'Malley (Jamaica Plain, West Roxbury) said the devices will save the city $235,000 a year in natural-gas costs and "dramatically reduce our carbon emissions."
In addition, the grant will pay for a centralized system for turning lights at city ballfields on and off remotely, through a simple cellphone call to a specific number. The grant will also fund energy improvements at the Copley Square main library and four branch libraries.
"This speaks volumes to how wasteful we have been in the past," Councilor Maureen Feeney (Dorchester) said.
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
Why?
Why do we still have gaslights? Yes, they're pretty, but I'd think you could fake them with an approximately similar aesthetic feel with LEDs and have an even smaller "carbon footprint".
Also, they wouldn't catch fire. A few years back I watched the BFD trying to put one out on the corner of School and Tremont. Reasonably impressive and entertaining. Still, not really a good reason to keep them around...
How many lamps per igniter?
How do these igniters work? Is this just the first phase or will all 2,800 lamps be cycled with just 600 igniters?
This is a great project, assuming electric street lights are off the table in Beacon Hill.
Glad ball fields lights will be turned off
I wondered why ball field lights are left on when no one is on the field. Hopefully the ball fields in JP which are lit well beyond their use will be turned off.
Of course, there were other
Of course, there were other ways to turn gas streetlights on and off in the past.
http://www.cityofboston.gov/publicworks/lighting/h... says:
"1922: Clocks installed on gas lamps and wound once per week. Lamps previously lit at night by lamp lighters using torches."
I assume the clocks were something like the ones described in this article about gas lights in Wales: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northeast/sites/wrexham... . Those lights had a small gas pilot which was always burning, and the 7-day clock switched the main flame on and off at night.
Oh, the phone number is a GREAT idea
I can just picture the ballfield lights now, blinking away while some schmuck sits there giggling into a cellphone.
7-0 near the end of the game ...
Visting coach: got the number?
Assistant: right here ...
Wait... what???
In the 21st century, the city is still lighting streets with a FLAME? Even worse, they're spending a full MILLION dollars to be able to turn them off & on?
I agree with the previous poster who said we could achieve a similar aesthetic with some LEDs, and it would be WAY cheaper. This is worse than leaving hundreds of faucets running 24/7.
How many millions has the city wasted on these "daytime gunning lights" over the years?
*bangs head on desk*
Only $470,000 or so
Sorry for not making that clear. The rest of the $1 million will go for the park and library work.
Trade off
Without the natural gas lamps, many of those who live on Beacon Hill wouldn't be as willing to pay the MILLION DOLLARS in taxes it takes to light them.
yup I've wondered why we've
yup I've wondered why we've kept such an inefficient form of lighting around for so long. Yep its great for nostalgia, but so is driving a car that takes leaded gas, but we don't do that anymore either.
Gas lamps a good investment
Trivia: For those unaware, the horizontal posts on the top of many of the gas lamps was to support the twice-a-day lamp-(de)lighters ladder. As labor costs became too dear it was cheaper to leave the lamps on 24/7. The horizontal posts remained both to match earlier gaslamp models and for the lamp-repair folks to take advantage of.
what a great post.
a withering blow to the passive aggressive "i can't afford to live in a gas lamp neighborhood and therefore I will make a high horse argument about environmental efficiency."
the class war that rages daily in this comments section is humorous.
Interesting how the term "class war" ...
is usually applied when the non-rich fight back.
fight back against what?
and by the way, you don't have to be rich to live in a gaslit neighborhood. they have them in chucktown, too. you know, around the historical areas that attract visitors, money and jobs into the city.
The problem is that "aesthetics" are totally subjective
If we were to replace the gas lamps with electric lighting (be it bulbs or LEDs), do you know what? People would actually get used to the sight of the new lamps and carry on with their normal lives. And all would remain right with the world.
Sorry, but keeping an outmoded and unnecessary lighting system just because somebody thinks it looks pretty, or adds historical character to a neighborhood, or (add your favorite NIMBY we don't want any change because change is always evil argument here) is not a legitimate justification for the continued waste of taxpayer's money. Especially when so many more important city programs are facing cutbacks or elimination.
I don't think so in this
I don't think so in this case.
Humans don't like harsh lighting.
I bet you could get babies to point to which light they prefer and they'd choose the softer light over the harsher one.
they doubtless added a few
Unless they put them in while you were there, they added a few grand to your cost. So it's the job of the city to make housing less affordable?
higher value equals higher property taxes
what is so wrong about keeping a distinctive feel to a neighborhood? in particular, a neighborhood where the residents contribute a substantial amount of tax revenue to the city? Boston is a city that respects tradition, even quirky, outdated tradition - that's part of what makes it an attractive place to live.
mein gott. talk about a tempest in a teapot. If you people lived in Rome, you'd be bitching about the energy costs of the trevi fountain.
If they make housing less
If they make housing less affordable by making neighborhoods more pleasant, then yes.
why not create a jobs program?
Besides, I like the classics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B5xiYls9pM
How about Fenway?
How about Fenway? As someone who used to live right down the street, I can tell you with great ire that those tremendous arrays light up the skies on non-ball nights. In the middle of winter. At least twice a week.
What number can I call to shut those off?
Citgo sign is on all day
BTW, the Citgo sign is on 24-7.
Yes but the electricity is
Yes but the electricity is paid by a private entity, not the city of boston. Also, the citgo sign is/has gone under a retrofit to migrate to LEDs. I bet that whole sign uses as much electricity as a space heater now.
Fenway lighting on winter nights
Those lights were on to support construction in the off-season (or perhaps temporary work for the Bruins outdoor hockey game)