Structure’s ‘efficient lighting’ dims night sky

Lights glowing from the Yale Parking Structure make it difficult for University astronomers to search the skies from a nearby observatory.
Professor Rich Rand, faculty overseer for the observatory, said parking structure lighting has made it harder to see the stars in Albuquerque.

“When they built the hospital that was bad enough, but this source is much worse,” he said. “It seems ridiculous to us that there should be light from that parking structure shining directly on the observatory or anywhere else but where it’s needed. If you’re not shining light where it’s needed, then you’re wasting energy and you’re wasting money.”

Capital Projects Director Bill Turner said the structure’s fluorescent bar lighting, powered by solar panels, produces light pollution, but it has positive attributes.

“Fluorescent lighting is highly efficient lighting from an energy-use perspective,” he said. “Fluorescent bulbs also produce less intense glare than other lighting types.”

Light pollution hinders astronomers’ ability to adjust to darkness and see objects in the night sky, Rand said, and the light that shines on the objects also makes them appear fainter.

Students and researchers use the observatory for studying, and it is open to the public every clear Friday night. Rand said the light interference reduces the quality of research and information observers can gather through telescopes.

“The city’s not a great place to do deep astronomical observation, and it’s not being helped by the light from the parking structure,” he said. “For public outreach, it limits the quality of the experience.”

Rand wrote a memo to Provost Suzanne Ortega addressing the issue at the end of last semester. He said he didn’t receive a reply. The first row of lights, however, has been shielded, which helped, Rand said.

Turner said Capital Projects is looking into the cost of covering all the light sources on the structure that are affecting the observatory.

“The top floor condition that creates direct glare was a mistake we’re in the process of correcting,” he said. “The design architects, I think, in that regard failed to shield the lights adequately in the first place. It’s not OK in a design to have direct glare emanating from a building, but I think the lighting engineer didn’t realize the elevation of the viewing point at the observatory.”
Stephen Romero, a senior astrophysics student, said that before the shields were put up he had a better view of a diffuse nebula from his backyard with a naked eye than he did through the telescope at the observatory. He said he will use the observatory for his honors thesis and hopes interference doesn’t damper his research.
“I was kind of frustrated, but I guess they’re doing their best to cover it now,” he said. “I understand that this is a new building and a light covering doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, but it does influence a small population of people that do use the observatory.”
Astronomy professor John McGraw said the fluorescent bar lighting on the parking structure is outdated and directs light outward, not toward cars and passersby.
“This is light pollution of the first order,” he said. “This is technology that should have gone out of vogue 25 years ago. We’ve reverted to lighting scenarios that are ancient and outmoded.”
Turner said engineers chose the lights because they were the best choice for illuminating the structure for security purposes.
“From a physics professor’s perspective, that might be an outdated way of doing lighting, but from a design perspective that’s not an outdated way of doing lighting,” he said. “The error was in not shielding the lights from direct observation.”
McGraw said he recognizes the mistake and hopes it will be resolved to prevent obstruction of educational and research endeavors.
“Campus planning and architecture knows that astronomers are there,” he said. “They know about the campus observatory, and yet they let this contractor do this insane lighting. It’s quite honestly just beyond me.”