Should there be lights on overhead signs?

[jeffandnicole]

Why are these lights getting removed? Is it because car headlights are enough to see the sign or what?

This is exactly the reason. Lights are not free, they have power and maintenance requirements and they are redundant due to the reflectivity of new signage.

Georgia DOT has already eliminated all I believe of their BGS lights. Though you can still see where they used to be mounted.

On the flip side, sign reflectivity maintenance isn't free either. Here in Florida, my understanding is the signs are begin to fade beyond reflectivity specs after about 7 years in the sun, if they're getting direct sunlight.

To me the degradation is super-clear. Driving at night, when I encounter a new sign with my headlights, its way brighter then when even they used to install lights on it, but after only a year or 2, its much more similar to having lights installed. By year 10, signs really aren't reflecting an adequate amount of light for visibility from what I've seen, but the BGS seem to never get replaced at that point because of the huge cost of doing so (FDOT does seem to follow a 7 year rule for all of the smaller "standard" (no customization) signs in my area).

So really, IMO, the fair question should be which is cheaper: replacing the sign after 7 years, or keeping the sign for 20-30 years and replacing just the LEDs on it probably at a similar amount of time, and paying the electric bill for the said LEDs.

You also have to factor in maintenance. Light units become faulty, wires disconnect, etc. Unlit signs require zero extra maintenance that any other sign installation doesn't already require. Lit signs still fade and become unreadable too, so a 20-30-year lifespan isn't necessarily realistic. IIRC, with the type of sheeting WisDOT specs, there is a 12-year warranty, which happens to align with their 12-year corridor sign replacement cycle.

Not to mention upfront costs of getting electric to the sign.  If it's right by an overpass or on a local road, not too much of a problem.  If the signs are a mile or more from the interchange...and anything else in all directions, that's a mile of running wiring, conduit, etc. to the sign.  Solar is an option, but there's drawbacks to it too.

[oscar]

Not to mention upfront costs of getting electric to the sign.  If it's right by an overpass or on a local road, not too much of a problem.  If the signs are a mile or more from the interchange...and anything else in all directions, that's a mile of running wiring, conduit, etc. to the sign.  Solar is an option, but there's drawbacks to it too.

Also, rampant copper wire theft.

Lately, Alaska has been using "lighting curfews" on its freeways (not just the overhead signs) as an economy move. Unfortunately, solar isn't an attractive option there. When lighting is needed most in the winter, there isn't a lot of daylight for solar panels to recharge the batteries.

[tolbs17]

I voted "Don't care". It doesn't matter to me whether an overhead sign has lights or not.

[US 89]

Most urban overhead BGSs in Utah put up before 2012 have lights on them. About half of them work.

[UCFKnights]

Why are these lights getting removed? Is it because car headlights are enough to see the sign or what?

This is exactly the reason. Lights are not free, they have power and maintenance requirements and they are redundant due to the reflectivity of new signage.

Georgia DOT has already eliminated all I believe of their BGS lights. Though you can still see where they used to be mounted.

On the flip side, sign reflectivity maintenance isn't free either. Here in Florida, my understanding is the signs are begin to fade beyond reflectivity specs after about 7 years in the sun, if they're getting direct sunlight.

To me the degradation is super-clear. Driving at night, when I encounter a new sign with my headlights, its way brighter then when even they used to install lights on it, but after only a year or 2, its much more similar to having lights installed. By year 10, signs really aren't reflecting an adequate amount of light for visibility from what I've seen, but the BGS seem to never get replaced at that point because of the huge cost of doing so (FDOT does seem to follow a 7 year rule for all of the smaller "standard" (no customization) signs in my area).

So really, IMO, the fair question should be which is cheaper: replacing the sign after 7 years, or keeping the sign for 20-30 years and replacing just the LEDs on it probably at a similar amount of time, and paying the electric bill for the said LEDs.

You also have to factor in maintenance. Light units become faulty, wires disconnect, etc. Unlit signs require zero extra maintenance that any other sign installation doesn't already require. Lit signs still fade and become unreadable too, so a 20-30-year lifespan isn't necessarily realistic. IIRC, with the type of sheeting WisDOT specs, there is a 12-year warranty, which happens to align with their 12-year corridor sign replacement cycle.

Signs lose their reflectivity well before they fade to unreadable. My understanding of FDOT policy is that unlit signs need to be checked for reflectivity every year after 7 years, and entirely replaced if it fails. Lit signs aren't subject to that, so there is definitely less maintenance for the physical sign on an unlit sign. Obviously the lighting components have their operational and maintenance costs, so as I originally said, its a question of whether paying for operation and maintenance of lighting or paying for a sign replacement, if things are done right. To me, it seems fairly obvious that one lit sign is going to last at least as long as unlit signs, but I'd guess operating and maintaining the lighting for those 15 years probably costs more then just replacing the sign half way through that time period.

[ErmineNotyours]

I noticed that high-reflectivity signs went up as lights were going down, improving viability a little, but not as much as it would have if they had kept both.  This sign went up new with both a light and high vis (daytime photo, but you get the idea).  When lit the new high vis surface puts a halo around the bright spot on the sign.  Perhaps this is a message to those who like lights: new high-vis signs and lights don't mix.

[tolbs17]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0858503,-79.9758072,3a,75y,295.91h,96.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8ZY4Yw372dJ0Whg1AYsytQ!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

What happened to this sign? A sign used to be here but I guess they took it down because of unnecessary lighting on the sign?

And it looks like they don't want to put it back.

[jeffandnicole]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0858503,-79.9758072,3a,75y,295.91h,96.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8ZY4Yw372dJ0Whg1AYsytQ!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

What happened to this sign? A sign used to be here but I guess they took it down because of unnecessary lighting on the sign?

And it looks like they don't want to put it back.

A little all-in on this lighting thing, aren't you?  They could just basically unplug the lights if they didn't want to use them.

Can't say for sure here, but in NJ they've been removing/replacing a lot of overhead signs due to issues with the older structures.  When a structure is removed without immediate replacement, the time of replacement has been anywhere from a few months to several years.

[tolbs17]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0858503,-79.9758072,3a,75y,295.91h,96.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8ZY4Yw372dJ0Whg1AYsytQ!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

What happened to this sign? A sign used to be here but I guess they took it down because of unnecessary lighting on the sign?

And it looks like they don't want to put it back.

A little all-in on this lighting thing, aren't you?  They could just basically unplug the lights if they didn't want to use them.

Can't say for sure here, but in NJ they've been removing/replacing a lot of overhead signs due to issues with the older structures.  When a structure is removed without immediate replacement, the time of replacement has been anywhere from a few months to several years.

Yeah they could unplug them but the real question I'm asking is why did they remove the overhead sign?

[tolbs17]

I'm also surprised that I still see lots of overhead signs in Virginia that still use lighting and they are operational at night.

Maryland too.

[tolbs17]

The ones in Kinston still have them, as well as the ones along I-40 in Durham.

[SkyPesos]

Indiana is one state that I've seen use lighting for all BGS in the past. Now, it seems like the recent BGS installations lack lights.

Ohio also used them, but a bit differently compared to most other states. They're attached to the bottom of the BGS in a green strip extension, and aren't leveled with the adjacent signs. With sign replacements over the past 10 years, the lighting disappeared too.

[jmacswimmer]

Maryland too.

They're late to the party on this compared to other states, but the most recent gantry/sign replacements by SHA & MDTA have now eliminated lighting.

(Here's an SHA example from I-70 approaching I-695 - this one went up in summer 2018)
(And here's an MDTA example from the JFK Highway stretch of I-95 - this one sometime in 2019)

[plain]

I voted yes, but mostly for major junctions (like freeway to freeway).

When VDOT replaced most of the BGS's along I-95 in Richmond they included lighting... and the lighting are LED's. They look great! And very easy to read.

[Rothman]

Yes.  But they should be pointed at the passing traffic.

[Pink Jazz]

Ever since ADOT started using Type IX and XI diamond grade sheeting they have been phasing out overhead sign lighting. Freeway junctions used to be the exception, but that is no longer the case (none of ADOT's new APL signage have lighting).

[interstatefan990]

I'm in favor of making improvements in sign retroreflectivity rather than installing overhead lighting.

[andrepoiy]

Yeah, Ontario has no lights on any overhead sign as they are all reflective enough

[tolbs17]

Seems like New Jersey still has them and still puts them on the signs.

Not all of them though

[tolbs17]

I voted yes, but mostly for major junctions (like freeway to freeway).

When VDOT replaced most of the BGS's along I-95 in Richmond they included lighting... and the lighting are LED's. They look great! And very easy to read.

I know here in North Carolina, we stopped using them I think since 2009 or so. With lighting, you can look back and see the sign that's what I know. I think the reason why they install them is cause some drivers have dim headlights.

[andrepoiy]

Lights on signs were not something I thought existed until I visited the US. Here in Ontario, the signs are always reflective enough, so like I don't think lights are needed.

[JoePCool14]

Lights on signs were not something I thought existed until I visited the US. Here in Ontario, the signs are always reflective enough, so like I don't think lights are needed.

Ontario never had lights even on older signs?

[andrepoiy]

Lights on signs were not something I thought existed until I visited the US. Here in Ontario, the signs are always reflective enough, so like I don't think lights are needed.

Ontario never had lights even on older signs?

I haven't been alive for a long time, but looking at old photos of freeways from before, there doesn't appear to be any. Unless they're hidden.

Highway 401 circa 1968 from theKingsHighway



Circa 1971

[JoePCool14]

Lights on signs were not something I thought existed until I visited the US. Here in Ontario, the signs are always reflective enough, so like I don't think lights are needed.

Ontario never had lights even on older signs?

I haven't been alive for a long time, but looking at old photos of freeways from before, there doesn't appear to be any. Unless they're hidden.

(images snipped)

They aren't on the lower section of gantry? That's usually what that stuff's for IIRC.

[andrepoiy]

Lights on signs were not something I thought existed until I visited the US. Here in Ontario, the signs are always reflective enough, so like I don't think lights are needed.

Ontario never had lights even on older signs?

I haven't been alive for a long time, but looking at old photos of freeways from before, there doesn't appear to be any. Unless they're hidden.

(images snipped)

They aren't on the lower section of gantry? That's usually what that stuff's for IIRC.

I took a look at more old pictures on TheKingsHighway.ca and I did find a lot of other gantires with lights. So I'm not sure why those I posted did not have them.