Street Lamps to Lose Garish Yellow Glow

Street lighting helps to deter varmints, vagrants, cockroaches, and criminals and vampires, so I am all for it, though I will miss the orange glow. Seriously, the neatly laid-out orange lights of Chicago are always a pleasure to see from the air. But I don't lament progress that saves me money and increases my safety. I'd even go so far as to suggest that while the city workers were up there replacing the lights, that they plop a security camera on each light post as well!

There was a big debate on everyblock about these lights. Apparently they may degrade more quickly and lose their light more quickly. Not sure one way or the other. I do know that we got them in my alley when I was out of town and the change was striking. Much nicer light.

And we're losing the recycling bins in Horner Park. It was great while it lasted--I could get the I-Go car, do stuff, go home get my recycling and take it to Horner while I was dropping off the car. Only not anymore. The next nearest bins are at Pulaski and Sunnyside. I guess I'll be dragging my recyclables on the CTA next.

We already got them on my block.  They're very nice and there's a much brighter and clearer light.  I like em'!  They're a lot more aesthetically pleasing as well.

It seems when these orange glow (Boehner) lights were started, years ago, they were considered the 'bee's knees' and the cutting edge in street lighting. 
We didn't like them, but accepted them because they were better than the old ones which were costly to maintain.
So to me, this is just another advance in technology, not some dark mayoral administration sink hole.

great, we as replacing the bright Orange glow with a brighter white glow. Now I won't be able to see the three stars in the night sky.

 Per the article:

 
"Along with environmental and financial benefits,
city officials said the new lights are designed to cast their glow
directly downward, as opposed to the old lights that were well known for
their light pollution, otherwise known as “sky glow.” This downward cast will also decrease what is known
as “light trespass” — another feature of the old lights, which caused
the glow to seep into homes nearby, city officials said."

You should be able to see more stars with these lights since there will be less light pollution.

Apparently the lumens, or whatever, are essentially the same but the light looks more . . . bright . . . I don't know how to explain it. Anyway, if it is true that they lose half their light pretty quickly, you should be OK.

I would assume this is a broader spectrum light.  The sodium vapor lamps had one advantage for astronomers in that they emit light at a single wavelength so it can be filtered out.  Because the light is monochromatic, it is going to poorly illuminate objects that don't reflect the wavelength and will seem more dim than a  broad spectrum light.

The City Department of Transportation announced they'll be replacing the current yellow glowing sodium-vapor street lamps across the city with more energy efficient metal-halide lights that cast a white glow and shine brighter on city streets. When completed the switch will save the city $1.8 million in electrical costs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 15,000 metric tons. Anyone still want to further the "Richard Daley was a green mayor" myth?

Your comment seems to claim that Daley wasn't a green mayor because if he were, this would have happened when he was mayor.  But hang on a second...from the article you linked to:

The city started the project last year and is expected to wrap it up this summer.

This project started while Daley was still mayor.

Now I'm not going to defend Daley's overall environmental record.  I personally think he moved the ball in the right direction on the issue, but could have done a lot more.  But give him credit where credit is due.

[The other possibility, I suppose, is that you intended to say "Anyone still want to further the 'Richard Daley wan't a green mayor' myth".  I doubt it given Chicagoist's reporting history on the matter, but it's possible..]

Agreed. Another instance of Chicagoist's unnecessary, and unnecessarily snarky, commentary cluttering up a perfectly good article.