Has anyone ever looked into the effect of lighting on the safety of a street? I'm curious if there is any proof for what seems like common knowledge that light poles and porch lights on a street deter crime and improve safety (trips, falls, and accidents). One of the common requests from our neighborhood for SNI funding, GO Bond improvements, MAPs projects, etc is for more lighting on our streets. Our Neighborhood Association even considered a program to donate energy efficient porch lights to every home as an alternative to installing $10,000 light poles. I have a nagging concern that it won't really help though. The research that I've seen seems to be mixed with some saying there's no actual improvement and others seeing huge differences between dark scary streets and warm and well-lit streets. The idea of "safety" is so subjective that I'm not surprised, but I'm wondering if there are any real life examples (with corresponding data) of lighting improving Oklahoma City.

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/02/street-lights-and-crime-seemingly-endless-debate/8359/
http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/david_farrington/hors251.pdf

^

I would say that safety is a state of mind, not really reality.

In other words, what is important to most people is that they *feel* safe. For example, you can provide statistics that show violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for some time, yet many long for their childhood days where "it was safe to ride our bikes all over the place without worry."

It may be a simple matter of people feeling much safer when they can more clearly see what is happening around their homes and neighborhoods. And that perceived safety itself represents an enhanced quality of life.

I think you can find studies that would support whatever view you want to enforce. The "Broken Windows" theory used to be very popular, now, it's very much questionable.

I think a common sense approach is positive for the most part.

For me, I've lived in all sorts of neighborhoods and spent 15 years in a very unkept and dangerous part of the city (SE 44 and Sunnylane area). In all that time, I never once had any real problem. Though, many of my neighbors did.

We always kept a nicely groomed yard, always on exterior lighting, motion activated lights, motion sensors on the property and were religious at using our alarm system.

We had very few street lights and the general feel was one of less than safe after dark.

If an area fits a stereotype - say, unsafe slum - then I find it tends to live up to that reality. But, it goes much further than street lights.

Personally, I wouldn't argue against lighting in a neighborhood. Our new neighborhood uses HOA dues for street lighting and I'm all for it. If for no other reason than I like to run or walk the dog at night and I appreciate the extra lighting.

I think there are definitely reasons to have lighting, even if it's just for the perception of safety, but it comes down to the best "bang for the buck" and use of limited resources. We got quotes that were literally $10,000 for a light pole, and the neighborhood would have to pay the ongoing costs of electricity for it. That just isn't practical for most areas, especially if there isn't convincing evidence that it helps.

The benefits of good street lighting are more than just deterring crime.

It encourages people to walk (and generally be active outside) after dark and also lessens the likelihood someone will trip and injure themselves.

And of course, it improves safety for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

I can offer some personal experiences...

I lived in what was statistically one of the top 3 'safest' communities in the entire U.S., Thousand Oaks, CA just outside of L.A.

There was very little crime but twice there were crimes that I believe that were aided by the lack of lighting in front of my own house.

I had landscape lighting but have always hated the motion activated lights (I find them annoying and it was usually just animals or tree branches in the wind) so I deactivated the motion lights at my house.

I lived on a cul-de-sac and it was particularly dark up there anyway and being on top of a hill, the immediate area was quite secluded.

One time I came out in the morning to find a briefcase and some other items in my front yard. Looking through the contents I found the address to someone down the hill and a couple of blocks over. Turns out, someone had broken into their car then taken everything to my yard (no doubt because it was dark and secluded) to go through everything.

Another time someone stole a car and then drove it in front of my house where they brushed out all the broken glass from inside before continuing on.

That's two pretty bold crimes at my door front in an area that is famous for safety. I lived right near the beach for 7 years where there was comparatively a much higher crime rate but the area was very well lit and I never was aware of anything happening near me.


As a editorial comment, if people would just park their cars in their garages instead of filling the same with a bunch of useless junk then parking their most valuable possession on the street, most neighborhood crime would be drastically reduced. I have always parked in the garage and have yet to be the victim of any sort of crime, even while living what would be considered in high-crime areas.

Having lots of cars on the street also makes it easy for criminals to come and go because nobody notices or differentiates when there are suspicious vehicles around.

Well I can tell you lighting might have helped me in my situation. This was about 10 years ago now so I don't exactly remember where it was now. It was on the east side of okc I know that much. Anyway I had hung out with some friends and was driving home. I was going down the road towards I-35 and there wasn't much lighting. There was a broken down gas station to my right with no lights either. All of a sudden a very dark african american male wearing mostly dark colors jumped out in front of me to I guess try to cross the street. I don't know if he didn't see me or what but I thought I killed him. I did not ever see him until it was too late. He lived, everything worked out fine but I would have liked to have had lights to maybe see him and possibly be more cautious because of the surroundings.

After trips to other cities - just recently Denver and Dallas, I do notice how lacking street lighting is along many of our major streets. Northwest Expressway from 63rd to Council as an example has very very poor lighting particularly for such a major artery. I don't know if it's as much an issue of economy or if our leaders just don't think that lighting...and good roads (another topic) are that critical.

The standards in OK are well below average when it comes to streets, shoulders, striping, lighting and just about everything else related to roads.

I still can't believe the east bound off-ramp from I-40 to the OKC Boulevard is completely unlit. There are light starndards all along but not turned on. It's incredibly dangerous.

And when I first moved back here, I almost had to pull over during a moderate rainfall at night along I-44 heading to the airport. The roadway is terribly lit and the markings are almost impossible to see.

The standards in OK are well below average when it comes to streets, shoulders, striping, lighting and just about everything else related to roads.

I still can't believe the east bound off-ramp from I-40 to the OKC Boulevard is completely unlit. There are light starndards all along but not turned on. It's incredibly dangerous.

And when I first moved back here, I almost had to pull over during a moderate rainfall at night along I-44 heading to the airport. The roadway is terribly lit and the markings are almost impossible to see.

Yes! A few months ago during heavy rain I could barely drive on I-44. Lane lines were all but invisible and the few streetlights we have were off. I was angrily wishing we had at least reflectors so I could stay in my lane, as I was basically guessing at that point. Very frustrating.

My wife and I were recently on a trip to East Texas and while driving on a wet foggy night on a remote two-lane state road I was amazed at the quality of the center line. Reflectors we so close together it looked like a solid line. There is nothing and I mean nothing even remotely close to this on any metro road, street, or highway in OKC that I can think of. On many of our streets, as has been mentioned, the markings are almost completely worn off. So what is it that makes our standards so low? How did we come to adopt/accept this and why can't we seem to break out of the "less is ok" mode of management?

Because in Oklahoma, nobody expects much out of state-level government and the only standard anyone seems to apply to the city is that they (we, as taxpayers) keep cranking out shiny MAPS projects and the the city doesn't go bankrupt.

Of course it's easy to balance the city's budget when they do the absolutely bare minimum and then cut further every time there is a sales tax shortfall.

Most major streets in OKC do not have recognizable markings, which seems to be a pretty fundamental service that can't even be provided.

And of course, the city does a poor job of paving streets, keeping weeds cut, trash picked up, etc.

You really only notice how bad it is when you travel elsewhere. It's really a completely unacceptable situation and one of the reasons I think we should look at ending MAPS, keeping sales tax where it is (still below average in the state) and start providing some basic city services.

Playing Devils Advocate, I believe reflectors aren't put on roads in most states where snow is a possibility. http://www.snowplowforums.com/forums/7-off-topic/1624-road-reflectors-projectiles.html#/topics/1624?page=1&_k=xrrxbg

I think the alternating white / black stripes are supposed to help provide contrast in low visibility conditions but yeah, it doesn't work.

Pete, do you think it would be politically viable to keep the sales tax where it is once MAPS ends? Would it make it more difficult to do future MAPS projects?

I know one of the common things I hear as the problem is the fact that cities aren't allowed to use property taxes for operations, which would include things like street maintenance and lighting. Would changing the sales tax require a vote of the legislature or a ballot initiative like fixing the property taxes would?

Sorry, I need to do more reading on all of this and I could probably answer my own questions.

What future MAPS projects?

The only ones people seem to care about are roads and parks and things that the City should already be providing.

We've been keeping the sales tax artificially low (7.375% w/o MAPS surcharge) to accommodate MAPS while the state average is about 8.5%.

While I appreciate the need for outdoor lighting for outside night time activities and as a crime prevention tool, I think it needs to be managed to reduce light pollution. I really miss seeing starry skies.

the only standard anyone seems to apply to the city is that they (we, as taxpayers) keep cranking out shiny MAPS projects and the the city doesn't go bankrupt.

Personally I see no problems with those two standards. The "shiny projects" as you call them, have been some of the best investments this city has ever made. Spending that $100 million per year on trash and streetlights won't get you anywhere near the ROI that we've seen from the arena, the canal, river, and soon the streetcar and park.


Most major streets in OKC do not have recognizable markings, which seems to be a pretty fundamental service that can't even be provided.

Are you referring to markings on the pavement? If so, I have to whole-heartedly disagree with the assertion that "most major streets" here don't have them. Are some faded? Sure. But to act like the entire city is some kind of slum because of faded crosswalks and overgrown lawns is disingenuous and not conducive to a productive debate over the merits of spending on major public works projects vs. general quality of life upkeep.

I prefer to have the money we spend on MAPS earmarked for largely downtown development which will undoubtedly provide the city with a positive return on investment. The alternative being to pour another $100 million onto the $1.3 billion city budget and hoping they spend it on something worthwhile as opposed to repaving a road out near Edmond, thus subsidizing and enabling the sprawl which already has our city services stretched thin.

As far as I'm concerned, the city would be better off focusing on policy to promote infill over expansion. PlanOKC estimated huge savings for the city under their Scenario C (development split 50-50 between urban core and suburban fringe) as opposed to Scenario A (continued development outward, downward trend in urban core). Between reduced spending on infrastructure, roads, public services, safety, and utilities (all due to increased density) the city would save a projected $150 million per year.

The standards in OK are well below average when it comes to streets, shoulders, striping, lighting and just about everything else related to roads.

I still can't believe the east bound off-ramp from I-40 to the OKC Boulevard is completely unlit. There are light starndards all along but not turned on. It's incredibly dangerous.

And when I first moved back here, I almost had to pull over during a moderate rainfall at night along I-44 heading to the airport. The roadway is terribly lit and the markings are almost impossible to see.

Absolutely this. I think it's more of the 'cheap and crappy' way we typically approach public projects in OKC. It is practically a religion here.

By the way, the state is asking for another 14.5% cut across the board for all state agencies. Okies - particularly our rich overlords - just want stuff for cheap or free. This is becoming a failed state like Kansas.

I would love to see illuminated street name signs that are common in Plano, TX but I know that it will never happen in OKC.

As far as I'm concerned, the city would be better off focusing on policy to promote infill over expansion. .

This would probably be the best thing our city could do to stabilize financially and solve many of our infrastructure problems. Also in doing this we'd make strides in improving quality of life, walkability, attractiveness, public transit etc...

Before we focus on policy, the first thing to do is stop building freeways and turnpikes in cow pastures and stop widening 1,289th street to 4-lanes.

Before we focus on policy, the first thing to do is stop building freeways and turnpikes in cow pastures and stop widening 1,289th street to 4-lanes.

I agree, but wouldn't that start with policy changes?

Lighting does matter in my opinion. I would like to see a lot more streets in the core lit like Auto Alley and the Paseo are. Wide sidewalks with street lamps make for a much more pedestrian-friendly environment.

I agree, but wouldn't that start with policy changes?

Yes, that should be the first policy. :)