Cities Green Light on Traffic-Signal Deal is No Deal for Taxpayers

I read with interest an article in the 01.06.09 Gazette about the maintenance contract for traffic lights in the city. I was hoping to learn Kalamazoo was following the lead of other cities across the United States and replacing the incandescent signal bulbs with light emitting diode (LED) units. I was disappointed to see the reporter did not ask this question of our traffic engineer Mr. Abbas.

It’s an excellent question when you learn how much money LED’s can save a city. I had raised the issue with of one of the Gazette editors when I read an article this summer about the City purchasing new traffic signals. And, while I think we have an excellent city council, none of them asked the question either before approving this contract. So, my question has yet to be asked, let alone answered.

Maybe it’s the PBS programming I watch that makes me an informed citizen and want to investigate what MY city is doing. Everything I’ve seen and read about LED traffic lights tells me it’s great way to save considerable amounts of money in maintenance costs, and even more in energy costs. And as a bonus they reduce our carbon footprint!

A majority of U.S. cities are in the process of replacing the old energy wasting incandescent bulbs with LED’s in their traffic signals because they are a better choice for numerous reasons. First, they last for years instead of months (most of the $100,000 a year to maintain 90 traffic signals in Kalamazoo is in changing the bulbs). Secondly, they are brighter than the old-fashioned bulbs — especially helpful on foggy days. Thirdly — and best of all — they can save up to 80% in energy cost — and taxpayer dollars.

The bulbs can be switched out with minor modifications, so the signals themselves wouldn’t need to be replaced. So, I’m still asking the question: why is Kalamazoo in the dark about LED traffic lights?

If you want to learn more, visit NOW on PBS, watch a clip from Orlando, or visit How Stuff Works.