Waterloo Region Connected
Trails - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Trails (/showthread.php?tid=378)



RE: Trails - Viewfromthe42 - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 01:55 PM)ookpik Wrote: Anyone know why they chose to use AC-powered lighting in the first place? I'd have thought self-powered, solar-charged LEDs would do the job at lower cost, less maintenance and reduced risk of theft due to minimal amount of copper wiring. Perhaps they went with AC because LED lighting might have to be dimmer due to solar panel technology.

Being dimmer and being susceptible to low-sunlight non-functionality. We can't have a trail that becomes dark at random hours, depending on how overcast the day was.


RE: Trails - ookpik - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 02:26 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Being dimmer and being susceptible to low-sunlight non-functionality. We can't have a trail that becomes dark at random hours, depending on how overcast the day was.
That's what the battery backup is for, which is why I said "solar-charged" rather than solar-powered.

As an example of what's possible I have one of these over my garage door: Solar Power Wireless 20 LED Security Motion Sensor Light with Three Intelligent Modes.

These things have a solar panel plus a photocell to detect night and a motion sensor to detect movement. There's also a Li-Ion battery to store solar power collected during daylight for use at night. This unit is powerful enough to illuminate my driveway. That's with only 20 small LEDs.

Perhaps the motion detector feature isn't appropriate for trail lighting. That would in turn require a larger solar panel and bigger battery to power the light continuously during a winter night. And of course this unit is too flimsy for trail illumination. But it demonstrates what's possible these days with current technology. There must be some "industrial strength" versions of this concept that would work well on public trails.


RE: Trails - zanate - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 03:05 PM)ookpik Wrote: Perhaps the motion detector feature isn't appropriate for trail lighting. That would in turn require a larger solar panel and bigger battery to power the light continuously during a winter night. And of course this unit is too flimsy for trail illumination. But it demonstrates what's possible these days with current technology. There must be some "industrial strength" versions of this concept that would work well on public trails.

You're correct about that: the trail is meant to be continuously lit, not on-demand lit. Maybe a future project could try and coordinate how many lamps to light up for a cyclist, for instance. So you're talking about something that has to be lit a couple hundred times longer per day.

Also, your garage light is no doubt relatively low, so that it illuminates that patch of driveway well. On a trail, that's a vandalism concern. As well, if it's low, it's not going to throw useful light very far, and if it's high, it has to have a higher output to cover a greater area.

I did find a solar powered trail/pathway light, though. These products do exist. http://www.solarlighting.com/sites/default/files/docs/SOL_PathwayTrail_Brochure_0.pdf http://www.firstlighttechnologies.com/productshome.aspx

The panels are quite substantially larger, but they look like they'd work. If the panels are not obstructed by trees, or snow, and if they can gather enough power during short winter days to shine on long winter nights.

The only thing I could find (in my admittedly short search) about the suitability of solar lights for trails came from here.


Quote:Solar lights power themselves and are the most environmentally conscious option. There are no interconnecting wires with solar lighting, which means repairs are contained to a single fixture at a time. However, solar-powered lights are not recommended in places with significant tree canopy or in northern regions where natural light is limited. Photovoltaic cells of any size can also be very costly upfront. Still, installing solar lights on trails in more sunny regions, like the Metropolitan Branch Trail in Washington, D.C., can mean little to no cost of operation.

It's true that LED lights produce a lot more lumens per watt, but there are still hard realities about how much power you can get for a panel that can be fit to an individual pole. If you exceed that, you need to wire the pole to something (even if it's a bigger panel somewhere.)

At least running with LED lights (which the Spur Line trail lights are, I believe) means that they're low impact on the grid and on the annual budget. Assuming they can get the wiring to stay in place!


RE: Trails - tomh009 - 01-16-2016

(01-14-2016, 03:31 PM)zanate Wrote: It's true that LED lights produce a lot more lumens per watt, but there are still hard realities about how much power you can get for a panel that can be fit to an individual pole. If you exceed that, you need to wire the pole to something (even if it's a bigger panel somewhere.)

Given the LED lighting composition made up of individual LEDs, it should also be possible to position LEDs and lenses to make trail lighting that lights a rectangular area of the trail, rather than the usual fully circular area, where much of the light is "wasted" on the trail surroundings.  This, in turn would reduce the power requirements (and battery capacity requirements) for lighting the same amount of trail.

I don't know whether anyone makes such trail-optimized lighting, though.


RE: Trails - jamincan - 01-16-2016

That would run counter to best practices for CPTED though, as far as I know.


RE: Trails - ookpik - 01-16-2016

(01-16-2016, 05:14 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Given the LED lighting composition made up of individual LEDs, it should also be possible to position LEDs and lenses to make trail lighting that lights a rectangular area of the trail, rather than the usual fully circular area, where much of the light is "wasted" on the trail surroundings. 
This would also limit light "spillage" into NIMBYs'neighbours' BYs.

Lights on motion detectors would also greatly reduce power consumption. The disadvantage to NIMBYsneighbours is the annoyance of lights that are constantly cycling on/off as people use the trail. OTOH fixtures that target light on the trail rather than in all directions would mitigate that.

(01-16-2016, 07:04 AM)jamincan Wrote: That would run counter to best practices for CPTED though, as far as I know.
Could you expand on that? 

Natural surveillance [Wikipedia] seems to suggest focused lighting would be a good idea.
Quote:• When creating lighting design, avoid poorly placed lights that create blind-spots for potential observers and miss critical areas. Ensure potential problem areas are well lit: pathways, stairs, entrances/exits, parking areas, ATMs, phone kiosks, mailboxes, bus stops, children's play areas, recreation areas, pools, laundry rooms, storage areas, dumpster and recycling areas, etc.
Avoid too-bright security lighting that creates blinding glare and/or deep shadows, hindering the view for potential observers. Eyes adapt to night lighting and have trouble adjusting to severe lighting disparities. Using lower intensity lights often requires more fixtures.
Use shielded or cut-off luminaires to control glare.
• Place lighting along pathways and other pedestrian-use areas at proper heights for lighting the faces of the people in the space (and to identify the faces of potential attackers).



RE: Trails - jamincan - 01-16-2016

I would think the concern for a pathway would be the spaces adjacent to the path. If you have the light too focused on the path, the spaces around it are that much darker and harder to monitor.


RE: Trails - tomh009 - 01-21-2016

(01-16-2016, 11:27 AM)jamincan Wrote: I would think the concern for a pathway would be the spaces adjacent to the path. If you have the light too focused on the path, the spaces around it are that much darker and harder to monitor.

With directional lighting, you could illuminate just the path, the path plus 50 cm on either side, or 1 m on either side.  The designer is fully in control.  With conventional lights, you'll be either lighting a lot more of the bushes, or missing parts of the path.


RE: Trails - MidTowner - 01-21-2016

(01-16-2016, 10:02 AM)ookpik Wrote: This would also limit light "spillage" into NIMBYs' BYs.

Why "NIMBYs"? Why not "neighbours"? Someone whose home backs on to a trail might be very pleased about the trail's existence, make good use of it, and so on, but be interested in seeing the best possible lighting and, yes, lighting that minimizes the impact on him when he's using his property. I don't think it's fair to call such a person a "NIMBY."

Anyway, directional lighting is preferable for all sorts of reasons. Light pollution shouldn't be discounted. Neither should an attempt at being a good neighbour on the part of the trail.


RE: Trails - Smore - 01-21-2016

The lighting appears to be complete now and live! So hopefully that's that for the wire theft..


RE: Trails - clasher - 01-21-2016

As long as it stays live it should be a lot harder to steal.


RE: Trails - GtwoK - 01-21-2016

Is there a timeline for the IHT lighting? I can't remember if that was limited to Victoria Park or the entire scope of the trail. But walking along it late last night from West St to Peter, it definitely needs it.


RE: Trails - zanate - 01-25-2016

So I've had a chance to walk the trail a few times now with the lights on and my feelings are mixed.

The positive: Wow! It feels super friendly. Walking home from Uptown on a thin layer of crunchy snow on a well-groomed trail, under those white lights, I felt like I was in a ski resort. The lights also do a pretty good job at casting their light on the rail corridor and not outside it... mostly.

The negative: Wow! That's a lot of light scatter off the snow from those lights, and the colour temperature is very white. The area glows. If I were living adjacent to the trail, I'd be unhappy. Regardless, I am concerned about the potential for sleep disruption and nature disruption and I wish we'd look at yellower (or less blue-intensive) LEDs like the Californian cities in that article are.

I did also walk the trail one early morning, with the lights in dimmed mode. As far as I'm concerned, "dimmed" could be the new "on" and it would still be plenty bright enough.

Happy to have the lights, though.


RE: Trails - jamincan - 01-25-2016

Perhaps they need to adjust the colour balance and brightness in winter months? It sounds like the snow cover exacerbates the problem.


RE: Trails - ookpik - 01-25-2016

(01-21-2016, 09:09 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(01-16-2016, 10:02 AM)ookpik Wrote: This would also limit light "spillage" into NIMBYs' BYs.

Why "NIMBYs"? Why not "neighbours"? 

You're right. I was trying to be clever with the BYs and it back-fired. I should have said, "neighbours."