Energy & place
The essential questions to this project are as followed:
*In defining “impact” you can think about it in terms of the impact on the culture, the health of individuals, the land, the
economy, technology and scientific progress, future generations, and/or the sustainability of the resources of a specific
location or the planet as a whole.
**“Sense of Place” is a concept that describes the quality of people’s relationship with a place. However, you will
develop a definition of sense of place that most resonates with you. Some questions you may consider include: Does
sense of place include a connection to the natural world separate from people? Does it include people? Does it include a local sense of place or global? Do you define your sense of place as one of economic positioning, social class, geographic location, and/or connection to community and people? Do you define it as very particular spot that holds special meaning to you? Does your connection to land shape your identity? Do you feel rootless or disconnected from community and/or place?
*In defining “impact” you can think about it in terms of the impact on the culture, the health of individuals, the land, the
economy, technology and scientific progress, future generations, and/or the sustainability of the resources of a specific
location or the planet as a whole.
**“Sense of Place” is a concept that describes the quality of people’s relationship with a place. However, you will
develop a definition of sense of place that most resonates with you. Some questions you may consider include: Does
sense of place include a connection to the natural world separate from people? Does it include people? Does it include a local sense of place or global? Do you define your sense of place as one of economic positioning, social class, geographic location, and/or connection to community and people? Do you define it as very particular spot that holds special meaning to you? Does your connection to land shape your identity? Do you feel rootless or disconnected from community and/or place?
To read our group's joint scientific statement, please click here.
To see and hear our debate, please watch the video below.
Opening Statement
Coal is one of the most, if not the most, abundant fuels in the fossil fuel family. Coal has been used since the second and third centuries for burning fuel to provide fast heat for warmth, and cooking. In the 1800s, the use of coal shifted as it was now seen as a suitable provider of fuel to machinery and other uses such as steamships, steam-powered railroads, weaponry factories and iron blast furnaces to create metal. However, in the 1880s coal was seen to fit a more expansive purpose: Generating electricity to homes and factories. And now, according to the World Coal Organization, coal is used to generate 42% of the entire world’s electricity. My opponents argue that having coal plants are unclean, present great danger to the environment and are dated sources of energy, however, if coal power plants are closed, there would be no way to compensate for the vast amount of energy that coal provides.
In addition to the fact that coal is our country’s main source of energy, coal has been long used and therefore is a known and reliable energy source. As previously mentioned, it has been used for over 800 years as a source of energy and survival. In this period of time, we as a society have learned the side effects of coal power plants and have a strong understanding of how to control them. In addition, with the development of new technology, we are learning to burn coal in a cleaner manner, as my colleague Elizabeth Duncan has explained. Whereas other, newer sources of energy, such as nuclear, natural gas, and renewables are more unfamiliar to us and pose threats of unknown effects.
Along with the reliability that coal ensures us, coal provides the United States a way to become more energy independent as a country and become more sustainable and self-sufficient. A BP Statistical Review of Energy found that there are the most coal reserves in North America, denoting that we can become more independent and decrease the heavy energy reliance on other countries. Likewise, according to World Coal Organization, most coal is consumed domestically and only 15% is traded internationally. This means that if we were to deplete the amount of coal power plants in the US, we would significantly depend more on other countries. Moreover, it has been estimated that there are over 860 billion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide; meaning that there is enough coal to last us at least 118 years at current rates of consumption. In contrast, there are only enough oil and natural gas reserves to last around 46 and 57 years at current consumption levels. This amount of coal reserves present in the United States ensures that we can continue to gain access to energy in a safe, dependable manner for generations to come. For this reason, it is important that we not shut down these reliable coal power plants prematurely and that we continue to use these dependable resources while we can.
Closing Statement
Today we are debating whether or not the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico should remain open or not. Currently, according to PNM, the San Juan Generating Station provides 2 million people with a source of energy. If this generating station were to be closed, these 2 million people who are dependent on the station would still require energy. It is likely that the energy would just end up coming from another coal power plant elsewhere and therefore the closure of the San Juan Generating Station would be futile. At the moment we have an energy source that we can obtain locally and will provide not only energy but income for locals for the next century and beyond. So we must ask ourselves, is removing sustainability, depleting our energy for future generations and eradicating energy for 2 million people worth the cause? You tell me, as you vote for the people of New Mexico and keep the coal plant that they rely on open.
Coal is one of the most, if not the most, abundant fuels in the fossil fuel family. Coal has been used since the second and third centuries for burning fuel to provide fast heat for warmth, and cooking. In the 1800s, the use of coal shifted as it was now seen as a suitable provider of fuel to machinery and other uses such as steamships, steam-powered railroads, weaponry factories and iron blast furnaces to create metal. However, in the 1880s coal was seen to fit a more expansive purpose: Generating electricity to homes and factories. And now, according to the World Coal Organization, coal is used to generate 42% of the entire world’s electricity. My opponents argue that having coal plants are unclean, present great danger to the environment and are dated sources of energy, however, if coal power plants are closed, there would be no way to compensate for the vast amount of energy that coal provides.
In addition to the fact that coal is our country’s main source of energy, coal has been long used and therefore is a known and reliable energy source. As previously mentioned, it has been used for over 800 years as a source of energy and survival. In this period of time, we as a society have learned the side effects of coal power plants and have a strong understanding of how to control them. In addition, with the development of new technology, we are learning to burn coal in a cleaner manner, as my colleague Elizabeth Duncan has explained. Whereas other, newer sources of energy, such as nuclear, natural gas, and renewables are more unfamiliar to us and pose threats of unknown effects.
Along with the reliability that coal ensures us, coal provides the United States a way to become more energy independent as a country and become more sustainable and self-sufficient. A BP Statistical Review of Energy found that there are the most coal reserves in North America, denoting that we can become more independent and decrease the heavy energy reliance on other countries. Likewise, according to World Coal Organization, most coal is consumed domestically and only 15% is traded internationally. This means that if we were to deplete the amount of coal power plants in the US, we would significantly depend more on other countries. Moreover, it has been estimated that there are over 860 billion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide; meaning that there is enough coal to last us at least 118 years at current rates of consumption. In contrast, there are only enough oil and natural gas reserves to last around 46 and 57 years at current consumption levels. This amount of coal reserves present in the United States ensures that we can continue to gain access to energy in a safe, dependable manner for generations to come. For this reason, it is important that we not shut down these reliable coal power plants prematurely and that we continue to use these dependable resources while we can.
Closing Statement
Today we are debating whether or not the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico should remain open or not. Currently, according to PNM, the San Juan Generating Station provides 2 million people with a source of energy. If this generating station were to be closed, these 2 million people who are dependent on the station would still require energy. It is likely that the energy would just end up coming from another coal power plant elsewhere and therefore the closure of the San Juan Generating Station would be futile. At the moment we have an energy source that we can obtain locally and will provide not only energy but income for locals for the next century and beyond. So we must ask ourselves, is removing sustainability, depleting our energy for future generations and eradicating energy for 2 million people worth the cause? You tell me, as you vote for the people of New Mexico and keep the coal plant that they rely on open.
Project Reflection
For this debate, the motion at hand was whether or not the San Juan Generating Station in Farmington, NM should remain open or not. For this debate I was arguing against the motion pleading that the generating station should remain open. Heading into this debate I was certain that I was for the motion (wanting to close the power plant) but after some research and the debate, I am now unsure. Based on the knowledge gained from this process I see that there are new precautions being taken to “clean up” the power plants and that in the past six years, the cleanliness of the power plant in Farmington has improved immensely. In addition, it provides a great amount of jobs and coal that will last us for over the next 100 years. However I am still aware that power plants are the dirtiest source of energy and have great impact on the environment and people surrounding the plant so it is difficult for me to say which side I am now on.
There were many convincing arguments and pieces of evidence on both sides of the motion, however two stand out to me. On the “for” side there were many arguments regarding the negative environmental impacts and health risks that coal power plants present. With the pollution that these plants put into the ground and water and the greenhouse gasses that are emitted from these plants and the many health problems associated with coal, it seems illogical to keep them open. For the against side, the most convincing piece of evidence was the statistic from the World Coal Organization which states coal is used to generate 42% of the entire world’s electricity and that there is around 860 billion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide; meaning that there is enough coal to last us at least 118 years at current rates of consumption. In contrast, there are only enough oil and natural gas reserves to last around 46 and 57 years at current consumption levels. For these reasons, coal cannot be simply shut down.
In both this project and our humanities project, we looked at different types of energy sources. And although we talked about them briefly in both classes, I would want to research more about renewables. Currently, the ideal way to go with energy is towards renewables because they are much cleaner than current forms of energy and we can reuse them. However, because we don’t use a lot of renewables now, I don´t feel very educated about them and would like to learn some of the fundamentals such as how they work, how long they will last, what effects there are, etc…
As I mentioned before, I was put on the side of the motion opposite of what I believed. This wasn´t as challenging as I thought it was going to be because I have done several debates in humanities where I am arguing in opposition to what I believe. Moreover, with such a controversial topic as this one, there were plenty of helpful and reliable sources out there to help me. With this information I felt I was able to come with a quality and convincing argument even though I didn´t completely agree with my position. In the end, I actually enjoyed arguing against my perspective because it was more of a challenge for me and it allowed me to question myself which I believe is an important aspect of growth. However, because I was assigned the position of being in favor of coal power plants, I don´t feel that my sense of place or environmental ethic developed in humanities really affected the side I took. I talked a lot about how we need to respect the intrinsic value that the earth has and that we need to stop being so selfish in the ways we take and use the earth and I feel that the use of coal goes against both of these “ethics”.
Reviewing my debate, I feel like it went pretty well for the time we had to prepare for it. I feel that we were all prepared with facts and reasonable explanations as to why each of our sides was right and that we were all fairly confident in what we were saying. However, at the same time I feel that we all should have looked up more and tried to engage with our opponents as we gave our opening and closing statements and that we all could have worked on our speaking tone. I feel that one of the key components to making a convincing argument is putting emotion and “passion” into what you are saying and I don’t feel like any of us really did that. If I were able to do this again, I would have read my opening statement with more emotion and would have better organized my evidence against the other team. There were several moments in the debate where the opposite team would say something and I had evidence to counter their argument but I couldn’t find it. So if given the chance again, I would have been more organized with my notes.
In one of my opponent’s opening statements I realized she stated that coal generates 70% of our world’s electricity. However, based on my research, the World Coal Organization states that coal only generates 42% of the world’s electricity and when checking it again, I found this to be true. Another fact that seemed a little off to me is when one of my opponents said that hydroelectricity represents 19% of total electricity product. When checking her statement I found that, according to the EPA, hydropower only generates about 9% of our energy supply.
For this debate, the motion at hand was whether or not the San Juan Generating Station in Farmington, NM should remain open or not. For this debate I was arguing against the motion pleading that the generating station should remain open. Heading into this debate I was certain that I was for the motion (wanting to close the power plant) but after some research and the debate, I am now unsure. Based on the knowledge gained from this process I see that there are new precautions being taken to “clean up” the power plants and that in the past six years, the cleanliness of the power plant in Farmington has improved immensely. In addition, it provides a great amount of jobs and coal that will last us for over the next 100 years. However I am still aware that power plants are the dirtiest source of energy and have great impact on the environment and people surrounding the plant so it is difficult for me to say which side I am now on.
There were many convincing arguments and pieces of evidence on both sides of the motion, however two stand out to me. On the “for” side there were many arguments regarding the negative environmental impacts and health risks that coal power plants present. With the pollution that these plants put into the ground and water and the greenhouse gasses that are emitted from these plants and the many health problems associated with coal, it seems illogical to keep them open. For the against side, the most convincing piece of evidence was the statistic from the World Coal Organization which states coal is used to generate 42% of the entire world’s electricity and that there is around 860 billion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide; meaning that there is enough coal to last us at least 118 years at current rates of consumption. In contrast, there are only enough oil and natural gas reserves to last around 46 and 57 years at current consumption levels. For these reasons, coal cannot be simply shut down.
In both this project and our humanities project, we looked at different types of energy sources. And although we talked about them briefly in both classes, I would want to research more about renewables. Currently, the ideal way to go with energy is towards renewables because they are much cleaner than current forms of energy and we can reuse them. However, because we don’t use a lot of renewables now, I don´t feel very educated about them and would like to learn some of the fundamentals such as how they work, how long they will last, what effects there are, etc…
As I mentioned before, I was put on the side of the motion opposite of what I believed. This wasn´t as challenging as I thought it was going to be because I have done several debates in humanities where I am arguing in opposition to what I believe. Moreover, with such a controversial topic as this one, there were plenty of helpful and reliable sources out there to help me. With this information I felt I was able to come with a quality and convincing argument even though I didn´t completely agree with my position. In the end, I actually enjoyed arguing against my perspective because it was more of a challenge for me and it allowed me to question myself which I believe is an important aspect of growth. However, because I was assigned the position of being in favor of coal power plants, I don´t feel that my sense of place or environmental ethic developed in humanities really affected the side I took. I talked a lot about how we need to respect the intrinsic value that the earth has and that we need to stop being so selfish in the ways we take and use the earth and I feel that the use of coal goes against both of these “ethics”.
Reviewing my debate, I feel like it went pretty well for the time we had to prepare for it. I feel that we were all prepared with facts and reasonable explanations as to why each of our sides was right and that we were all fairly confident in what we were saying. However, at the same time I feel that we all should have looked up more and tried to engage with our opponents as we gave our opening and closing statements and that we all could have worked on our speaking tone. I feel that one of the key components to making a convincing argument is putting emotion and “passion” into what you are saying and I don’t feel like any of us really did that. If I were able to do this again, I would have read my opening statement with more emotion and would have better organized my evidence against the other team. There were several moments in the debate where the opposite team would say something and I had evidence to counter their argument but I couldn’t find it. So if given the chance again, I would have been more organized with my notes.
In one of my opponent’s opening statements I realized she stated that coal generates 70% of our world’s electricity. However, based on my research, the World Coal Organization states that coal only generates 42% of the world’s electricity and when checking it again, I found this to be true. Another fact that seemed a little off to me is when one of my opponents said that hydroelectricity represents 19% of total electricity product. When checking her statement I found that, according to the EPA, hydropower only generates about 9% of our energy supply.
To see my humanities project that complimented my chemistry project, please click here. Or click on the Humanities link on the left side bar.
Materials Unit project
How Materials Shaped the Course of History
This semester in chemistry we focused a lot on how a material’s chemical structure affects its physical properties. When looking at a chemical structure, it can be seen that they can be formed and structuralized in several different ways and that they will behave differently based on its structure and/or bond. For instance, when a material is ionically bonded, it will have conductivity, strength, and have a high melting point and boiling point. This material will act much differently then those that are covalently bonded. Covalently bonded structures will have a low melting, flexibility/break-ability and relatively no conductivity.
Chemistry has played an important role in shaping our past, influencing our present and in the creation of the future. When there is an understanding of how something works, it can be manipulated and utilized to help benefit us or improve materials/objects. For example in orthopedic surgery metal was used over 10 years ago for surgical repairs. But with the discovery of new materials and a deeper understanding of the chemistry works in older materials, absorbable plastic implants that are strong and secure during healing but then dissolve when healing is complete are now more frequently used. These advances in surgical equipment will continue to develop as more is learned. And if history is any indication of the future, these medical advances will continue to grow creating a more “invisible” way of doing surgery.
Letter
(to see full letter with charts, please click here)
Dear Mr. Lloyd,
As a relatively new driver, I have noticed that it is somewhat difficult to see an approaching crosswalk when driving at night. Although reflective crosswalk signs are occasionally present, drivers do not always see pedestrians on the crosswalk until they are nearly at the point of impact. Therefore, the crosswalks should be made more visible by applying a glow in the dark coat of paint coat over the top of crosswalk paint.
The most common way to make an object glow in the dark is by using phosphor, a synthetic phosphorescent substance. Phosphorescence is a specific type of photoluminescence that does not instantly re-emit the radiation absorbed. This can be described as an excited state. During this state the atom acquires energy through light. That energy is released through increased vibration of the atom, which returns back to a lower energy state through the process of absorbing, then emitting photons. For this reason, the radiation absorbed is slowly released at a lower level of light causing a glow that can last up to several hours. This can be similarly compared to a battery. The battery is being charged by an energy force for a long period of time causing the battery to absorb the energy and then slowly release it. In the case of crosswalks, the sun will be the source of energy “charging” the photons creating a glow for several hours during the heaviest pedestrian use in early evening.
The bottom line labeled with a “1,” displays the fully stable state of the electrons. The red lines labeled “A” represent the sun charging the electrons which causes them to travel past the semi-stable state labeled “line 2.” The three purple lines labeled “B” show the electrons falling instantaneously back to the semi-stable state. These electrons remain in the semi stable state for a specific duration of time. This is when the glow begins occurring. The black line labeled “C” illustrates the electrons falling back down into their fully stable state. When the electron falls into its lower level it does so by emitting photons. This photon is the light seen in glow in the dark materials.
Compounds such as zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate are typically used as pigments in phosphorescent safety related materials due to their higher level of luminescence. Phosphorescence, a specific form of luminescence, emits light in a slow delayed manner when electrons are “kicked up” to a semi stable state and have a slow fall back down to a stable state. Though zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate are most commonly used, strontium aluminate has an average of 10 times brighter luminescence than zinc sulfide does and therefore is more commonly used. Strontium aluminate (SrAl2O4) is a nonflammable, low soluble, solid, pale yellow powder which is chemically and biologically inert. This inability of chemical and biological change and low solubility will insure that outside forces such as rain, oil leaks from cars etc. will not have an effect on the paint itself and the paint will not runoff into the Animas River and pose a threat to water quality. When activated with an appropriate dopant, it behaves as a photoluminescent phosphor with a long occurrence of phosphorescence (this dopant will already be added to the paint mixture so it will not cost the city anymore time or money). A dopant is a substance added in small amounts to a pure semiconductor material to alter its conductive properties. In this case, the dopant is more of an activator which determines the duration of time of the “afterglow” and the wavelength the phosphorescent glow is emitting. Some dopants include boron, phosphorous, antimony, and arsenic. When strontium aluminate is applied as a pigment within the phosphorescent paint, a green glow will be present. This represents the effect of the sun exciting the molecules within the paint all day and having them slowly fall back down to their most stable state. Consequently when this layer is applied over cross walk paint, a glow will be present in the dark.
According to Transportation for America, over 47,700 (about 5,300 a year) pedestrians have died from being struck while crossing the street between the years 2000-2009. By applying a coat of phosphorescent paint to the crosswalk, this will not only enable pedestrians to see the location of the crosswalk, but it will give drivers further advance notice of the crosswalk. The cost of regular paint for crosswalks can start at as little as eight dollars a gallon. However the price can go up depending on what type of crosswalk is being made. A gallon of paint is estimated to cover around 350 square feet. The dimensions of the individual strips of paint creating the crosswalk are around eight feet by one foot. with an average of 10 stripes across the street. Based on this information, a crosswalk covers about 80 square feet. (in paint) enabling the city to make four crosswalks per gallon. Phosphorescent paint on the other hand could cost roughly anywhere from $400-$500 per gallon. However, with a proper sealant, phosphorescent paint can hold its glowing property up to 10 years and therefore would only need to be reapplied when the crosswalk paint is reapplied, twice every year. This would still be cheaper than the installation of flashing signs which cost over $25,000 to install. The cost is also contingent on the quantity of lights purchased and location of installation. In regards to this high price of phosphorescent paint, there may need to be designated areas assigned to where the paint is applied. In Durango, I would suggest applying the phosphorescent paint on 3rd Avenue, San Juan College, College and Camino, the Train Station, Durango High School and Animas High School crosswalks due to the high traffic and limited visibility.
In addition, the glow of the paint will give a very slight outline of the pedestrian so drivers are more able to see the walker. As a result, there will be fewer fatalities and injuries of pedestrians each year. Furthermore, Durango is a popular tourist destination; therefore it is in the city's best interest to keep our residents and tourists safe where pedestrian traffic is heavy. Durango is also an area where biking is one of the main modes of transportation; these bicyclists are notoriously difficult to see at night. This innovative solution to pedestrian safety will not only protect lives, but could add an additional attraction giving people one more reason to visit Durango. Though the phosphorescent paint for the cross walks is not necessarily inexpensive, a plan could be implemented to make it cost effective. Ultimately, it is difficult to put a price on life.
I appreciate your time and consideration of my ideas and I welcome any suggestions or feedback.
Sincerely,
Jessie Dvirnak, Animas High School.
This semester in chemistry we focused a lot on how a material’s chemical structure affects its physical properties. When looking at a chemical structure, it can be seen that they can be formed and structuralized in several different ways and that they will behave differently based on its structure and/or bond. For instance, when a material is ionically bonded, it will have conductivity, strength, and have a high melting point and boiling point. This material will act much differently then those that are covalently bonded. Covalently bonded structures will have a low melting, flexibility/break-ability and relatively no conductivity.
Chemistry has played an important role in shaping our past, influencing our present and in the creation of the future. When there is an understanding of how something works, it can be manipulated and utilized to help benefit us or improve materials/objects. For example in orthopedic surgery metal was used over 10 years ago for surgical repairs. But with the discovery of new materials and a deeper understanding of the chemistry works in older materials, absorbable plastic implants that are strong and secure during healing but then dissolve when healing is complete are now more frequently used. These advances in surgical equipment will continue to develop as more is learned. And if history is any indication of the future, these medical advances will continue to grow creating a more “invisible” way of doing surgery.
Letter
(to see full letter with charts, please click here)
Dear Mr. Lloyd,
As a relatively new driver, I have noticed that it is somewhat difficult to see an approaching crosswalk when driving at night. Although reflective crosswalk signs are occasionally present, drivers do not always see pedestrians on the crosswalk until they are nearly at the point of impact. Therefore, the crosswalks should be made more visible by applying a glow in the dark coat of paint coat over the top of crosswalk paint.
The most common way to make an object glow in the dark is by using phosphor, a synthetic phosphorescent substance. Phosphorescence is a specific type of photoluminescence that does not instantly re-emit the radiation absorbed. This can be described as an excited state. During this state the atom acquires energy through light. That energy is released through increased vibration of the atom, which returns back to a lower energy state through the process of absorbing, then emitting photons. For this reason, the radiation absorbed is slowly released at a lower level of light causing a glow that can last up to several hours. This can be similarly compared to a battery. The battery is being charged by an energy force for a long period of time causing the battery to absorb the energy and then slowly release it. In the case of crosswalks, the sun will be the source of energy “charging” the photons creating a glow for several hours during the heaviest pedestrian use in early evening.
The bottom line labeled with a “1,” displays the fully stable state of the electrons. The red lines labeled “A” represent the sun charging the electrons which causes them to travel past the semi-stable state labeled “line 2.” The three purple lines labeled “B” show the electrons falling instantaneously back to the semi-stable state. These electrons remain in the semi stable state for a specific duration of time. This is when the glow begins occurring. The black line labeled “C” illustrates the electrons falling back down into their fully stable state. When the electron falls into its lower level it does so by emitting photons. This photon is the light seen in glow in the dark materials.
Compounds such as zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate are typically used as pigments in phosphorescent safety related materials due to their higher level of luminescence. Phosphorescence, a specific form of luminescence, emits light in a slow delayed manner when electrons are “kicked up” to a semi stable state and have a slow fall back down to a stable state. Though zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate are most commonly used, strontium aluminate has an average of 10 times brighter luminescence than zinc sulfide does and therefore is more commonly used. Strontium aluminate (SrAl2O4) is a nonflammable, low soluble, solid, pale yellow powder which is chemically and biologically inert. This inability of chemical and biological change and low solubility will insure that outside forces such as rain, oil leaks from cars etc. will not have an effect on the paint itself and the paint will not runoff into the Animas River and pose a threat to water quality. When activated with an appropriate dopant, it behaves as a photoluminescent phosphor with a long occurrence of phosphorescence (this dopant will already be added to the paint mixture so it will not cost the city anymore time or money). A dopant is a substance added in small amounts to a pure semiconductor material to alter its conductive properties. In this case, the dopant is more of an activator which determines the duration of time of the “afterglow” and the wavelength the phosphorescent glow is emitting. Some dopants include boron, phosphorous, antimony, and arsenic. When strontium aluminate is applied as a pigment within the phosphorescent paint, a green glow will be present. This represents the effect of the sun exciting the molecules within the paint all day and having them slowly fall back down to their most stable state. Consequently when this layer is applied over cross walk paint, a glow will be present in the dark.
According to Transportation for America, over 47,700 (about 5,300 a year) pedestrians have died from being struck while crossing the street between the years 2000-2009. By applying a coat of phosphorescent paint to the crosswalk, this will not only enable pedestrians to see the location of the crosswalk, but it will give drivers further advance notice of the crosswalk. The cost of regular paint for crosswalks can start at as little as eight dollars a gallon. However the price can go up depending on what type of crosswalk is being made. A gallon of paint is estimated to cover around 350 square feet. The dimensions of the individual strips of paint creating the crosswalk are around eight feet by one foot. with an average of 10 stripes across the street. Based on this information, a crosswalk covers about 80 square feet. (in paint) enabling the city to make four crosswalks per gallon. Phosphorescent paint on the other hand could cost roughly anywhere from $400-$500 per gallon. However, with a proper sealant, phosphorescent paint can hold its glowing property up to 10 years and therefore would only need to be reapplied when the crosswalk paint is reapplied, twice every year. This would still be cheaper than the installation of flashing signs which cost over $25,000 to install. The cost is also contingent on the quantity of lights purchased and location of installation. In regards to this high price of phosphorescent paint, there may need to be designated areas assigned to where the paint is applied. In Durango, I would suggest applying the phosphorescent paint on 3rd Avenue, San Juan College, College and Camino, the Train Station, Durango High School and Animas High School crosswalks due to the high traffic and limited visibility.
In addition, the glow of the paint will give a very slight outline of the pedestrian so drivers are more able to see the walker. As a result, there will be fewer fatalities and injuries of pedestrians each year. Furthermore, Durango is a popular tourist destination; therefore it is in the city's best interest to keep our residents and tourists safe where pedestrian traffic is heavy. Durango is also an area where biking is one of the main modes of transportation; these bicyclists are notoriously difficult to see at night. This innovative solution to pedestrian safety will not only protect lives, but could add an additional attraction giving people one more reason to visit Durango. Though the phosphorescent paint for the cross walks is not necessarily inexpensive, a plan could be implemented to make it cost effective. Ultimately, it is difficult to put a price on life.
I appreciate your time and consideration of my ideas and I welcome any suggestions or feedback.
Sincerely,
Jessie Dvirnak, Animas High School.