Among a list of road projects that would receive funding if Gov. Sean Parnell’s capital budget proposal is approved, one of several items for Juneau stands out: “Egan Drive Illumination.”
A spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities said Friday that if the state can provide the $4.2 million in funding that the governor’s budget would provide, Egan Drive — Juneau’s main thoroughfare and its only unbroken road link between downtown and the Mendenhall Valley — could be lit with streetlights from downtown all the way to the Juneau International Airport area by this fall.
“The whole goal of the project is to basically provide lighting on Egan where lighting currently does not exist,” Jeremy Woodrow said.
Parts of Egan Drive are already illuminated, such as the overpass section where the highway bends near Walmart. Woodrow said lighting in that area would be a model for the rest of the road.
“The point of this project is to basically light Egan so it’s well-lit throughout the entire section,” said Woodrow. “As far as safety goes, it’s pretty hard to beat.”
The DOT&PF does not have statistics on how many wrecks are caused by poor lighting, but Woodrow remarked, “Studies do show a well-lit roadway is safer than one that is not.”
Woodrow said the purview of the project is lighting from Norway Point, where the Juneau Yacht Club is located, out to the so-called “McNugget” intersection, where Egan Drive meets Glacier Highway near the airport.
DOT&PF staff are “fairly confident” that work will begin this summer, said Woodrow, provided money is allocated for the project.
“It’s most likely going to happen this summer,” Woodrow said. “It might bleed into the fall.”
The work would not entail major road construction, according to Woodrow, though he said crews might need to temporarily close lanes of traffic “here or there.”
“It shouldn’t provide too much of a disruption to the daily commute,” Woodrow predicted.
Construction costs for the project are estimated at $4.3 million, Woodrow said. Funding to make up the difference from the $4.2 million in Parnell’s budget could be reappropriated from the design phase of the project, he added.
The source of the $4.2 million in funding is the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program. Legislative approval is required before those funds can be used by the DOT&PF.
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 523-2279 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional information.
Comments (30)
Add commentIf we are going to do this,
If we are going to do this, which I would argue we dont really need to, at least go LED...
Great idea! Driving on Egan
Great idea! Driving on Egan when it is raining heavily makes it almost unbearable as it is difficult to see. Having the route illuminated should cut down on accidents and make driving much safer.
Great!
Now the idiots will never turn their headlights on.
Who pays the light bill?
Skirkz, face it - idiots
Skirkz, face it - idiots never turn their headlights on anyway.....
LED's
AEL&P gets paid to maintain the lights and charges based on the kilowatts used meaning they have no incentive to put in LEDs. The last I knew was 25 cents a kilowatt hour but that was about 5 years ago. It's probably more like 45 cents a kilowatt hour. Call AEL&P and they can give you the exact cost.
Even idiots...
...turn on their headlights when they find themselves in the dark. You think Freddy's intersection was dangerous before? Wait till the idiots make it all the way from town without their headlights on.
Problems w/LEDs
The problem with LED lighting for highways is that LEDs are not a brite as "conventional" lights. Thus, you need to install more light poles with LEDs to get the same safe lighting intensity. So, it's really a push with power cost to light and then DOT has more poles to install (more likely to get hit) and maintain. Also, LEDs have less white spectrum light than conventional lights.
skirkz
It must be difficult going through life, when you're perfect in every way......how do you cope?
Not a great idea
Illuminating the intersections makes sense, but the whole run?
Seems like a waste of money and kilowatts to me. Besides, I like a bit of darkness at night.
good idea
I think its a great idea. Install LEDs (they can be far brighter than conventional lights in terms of lumens/watt, and they can be left on all the time in the winter). This is a tough place to see in the foggy wet dark we love.
Not perfect.
I have, on occasion, failed to turn on my headlights right AT sundown. But, to answer your question, 49er, I tape a 'Kick Me' sign on my back and write " Give me S***! " on my forehead. Keeps me humble.
Great
I've been hoping for this for a long time. I agree with AuroraVista!
how about . . .
some lighting for the back loop??!! it's as dark as ink in the winter months.
Outdoor, then you havent
Outdoor, then you havent researched LEDs in a long time. Plus most places are using them now. They work just fine.
Lighting
LEDs are nice, but there are other lighting technologies that might be more suitable, such as induction lighting - comparable efficiencies, better light quality, longer life, and lower cost.
As eyes get older, they have a harder time adjusting to the bright-dark-bright-dark... of Egan Drive, with brightly lit intersections then dark stretches.
Eliminate one major accident or fatality and that pays for a lot of KWH's.
About time!
This is a good project to spend our money on.
Sounds...
Sounds to me like a politician or two has stock in AEL&P. Really makes me wonder...
I'm not sure how much good it will do. Lighting the entire run would mean more shadows. Would you rather drive under street lights or adjust to driving in the dark with headlights? Remember those good times when you shot your wiper fluid out and it instantly froze to your windshield. You drove along carefully, but could see. then you get under a street light and the glare completely blinds you.
I could argue this one both ways. I don't mind the idea, but really would like to know who is paying the bill. Who is reaping the reward financially for this decission?
I also hate that you cannot
I also hate that you cannot go drive anywhere and see the northern lights anymore. Sure you an hike back in, but used to go sit out at the glacier and watch them from the warm cab of the truck. Guess we could spend $50 in gas to drive out the road, but everywhere is lit up. Why are people so afraid of the dark?
Not so sure this will make
Not so sure this will make things safer. Have you ever noticed the glare while driving from overhead lights on a wet windshield? Not to mention the glare on a wet road surface which makes it harder to see the painted lines on the road, or what's left of the painted lines in late winter or spring after being largely weathered away. Windshields and roads are wet much of the time in Juneau. My experience has shown that while it's raining it's much easier to see the road and painted road lines when there are no overhead lights. Overhead lights seem to not just light the road, but make it easier to see the windshield and what's on it, like rain! The many rain drops and rain smears on the windshield reflect light in many directions making visibility challenging. In other words, the overhead lights make it harder to look 'past' the windshield where you're supposed to! If the city wants to light something up, how about making sure all the bus stops are well lit, or maybe lighted crosswalk signals within actual crosswalks where pedestrians could be hit. The lighting design needs to match actual known risks at the local level in terms of who got hurt in the past, why it happened, and how lighting may prevent that from happening in the future. I'm just not convinced lighting a straight shot of road is really going to make getting around any safer. Are the 'studies' claiming it's safer to have a lit road pertaining to a wet SE Alaskan climate or sunny southern California? More thorough questions should be asked before hasty answers lead to a potentially ineffective and wasteful project.
Oh Boy! More lights. At
Oh Boy! More lights. At least adhere to the Dark Sky Society principles: http://www.darkskysociety.org/
Let's keep Alaska from turning into another LA.
Good idea.
Hopefully people will drive safer with the installation of lights and not encourage them to drive recklessly (because they can see better with lights), or give them false confidence in the roads when in actuality they are in poor condition esp. in the winter. But great idea nonetheless.
Wait!
Isn't this "bad" federal money that Parnell says the state shouldn't take? Fip-flopper.
don't want the light pollution
or the electric bill
What about highways in other SE communities?
Woodrow remarked, “Studies do show a well-lit roadway is safer than one that is not.”
So are they going to apply the same standard and add lights to other highways in Southeast Alaska, including those where in recent years the same safety-conscious DOT has removed lighting, explaining that lights are intersections are all that are needed?
Rate and LED's
@AKNUT - You should do a little research before talking about the AELP rates. They have them posted on their website..just FYI. The rates are more like 12 cents a kilowatthour for residential..I didn't look but I believe the commercial rates are even lower. I want to say 7 cents???
On the LED lighting...if you look around..all the new street lights installed in the last couple of years around town are LED..they look plenty bright to me!
I think Lighting the unlit sections of Egan is a GREAT idea!!!
@JARBA123
AEL&P doesn't maintain the street lights for free-if they charged .12 per kilowatt hour then how do they recoup their labor cost for driving out there changing the bulb, putting up a downed pole? They charge to maintain the lights.
Here is what AEL&P said when I emailed them:
Good morning,
We charge a flat rate for our street lights that is divided into 12 payments.
The price depends on the number of watts; most residential customer will have a light that is between 100 watts and 250 watts depending on the area they are trying to light.
I have attached a sheet from our tariff that explains this.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you and have a great weekend!
Mackenzie Jenson
AEL&P
Office Coordinator
780.2222-Main
463.6308-Direct
Alaska Electric Light and Power Company Regulatory Commission
of Alaska
Schedule No. 46
Dusk to Dawn Lighting
Applicable to:
Outside street and yard lighting for governmental agencies,
municipalities, private residences, farms and businesses for dusk
to dawn lighting with lights mounted on existing poles with
bracket attachments and connected to existing overhead secondary
circuits.
Rate: Per Year
100 Watt, per light $119.71 I
150 Watt, per light $179.49
175 Watt, per light $209.44
200 Watt, per light $239.26
250 Watt, per light $279.69
400 Watt, per light $369.37
1000 Watt, per light $734.82 I
Presently connected filament lights will be billed at 1.44¢ per
connected watt per month.
Minimum Charge:
The minimum charge shall be the same as the rate per year.
Special Provisions:
a. Monthly Billing
Charges for annual use will be billed monthly in 12 equal
installments.
b. Less than 1 year use - Lamps disconnected within 12 months
after installation will be billed for the remaining unused
months upon disconnection.
c. Lamp replacements - Lamp replacements will be made by the
Company without additional charge. Outages shall be promptly
reported to the Company.
Effective September 2, 2011
Tariff Advice No. 381-1
Issued by Alaska Electric Light and Power Company
By Title General Manager
----------------------- Page 33-----------------------
APUC No. 1
Third Sheet No. 133
Canceling
Second Sheet No. 133
Alaska Electric Light and Power Company Regulatory Commission
of Alaska
Schedule No. 46 (Continued)
Dusk to Dawn Lighting
Special Provisions (Continued):
d. In the event the customer wants to have a street light
fixture changed to a larger size or otherwise modified the
customer will pay for the cost of the change in advance.
e. In underground subdivisions and other areas where existing
overhead poles with secondary circuits are not available,
the Company will install and maintain its standard light
fixtures on poles or standards which have been installed by
the customer and for which appropriate wiring has been
installed by the customer. Maintenance by the Company is
limited to the fixture, including bulbs, lenses and photo
cells. Any maintenance required on the pole or standard is
the responsibility of the customer.
f. The Company will replace bulbs, lenses and photo cells and
light fixtures installed and owned by the City and Borough
of Juneau at various City boat harbors within the Company's
service territory. The City and Borough of Juneau will be
responsible for maintenance of the wiring and standards
installed on floats in these boat harbors.
g. The Company will not maintain non-standard street lights
installed by others and charged for on the basis of metered
usage.
Wrecks are primarily caused
Wrecks are primarily caused by excessive speed and/or slippery roads. If anything, this lighting may result in more vehicles exceeding a safe speed. Oh boy, all this for a higher bill from CBJ! Hey, this ain't LA folks, this is AK. We don't need it. A thumbs down for this project.
Huh?
As someone who commutes from the Valley to Douglas daily.....None of you have had those days where the road is wet, its dark, and you mention to the rider..: "Even with my headlights on, I can't see much."?
I better get my eyes checked....must just be me.
Egan Lighting
Finally, Been waiting for this. Everyone will be safer.
@AKNUT
Thanks for the info.! That seems pretty reasonable actually. One more thing I happen to think..I have noticed a State of Alaska DOT bucket truck maintaining the light on Egan before. Do you know if Egan is a city street or a State Highway? If it is a state highway would AEL&P be responsible for charging to maintain them?