Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[machias]

Lighting in NY seems to be extremely minimal compared to other states

I don’t know how this works in other states, but in New York it’s the local municipality’s responsibility for picking up the power bill on highway lighting.

Let's address New York. As stated above, lighting along roadways aside from NYSTA or bridge authority property is paid for by the local municipality, and local municipalities do not want to pay for freeway lighting. Because of this, it tends to be limited to large cities. Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and NYC have fully-lit freeway networks, few other places do.

It should also be noted that NY used to have far more lighting, particularly Upstate. If you look at photos of Albany from the 60s and early 70s, there is full lighting along every freeway. All freeway lighting in NYSDOT Region 1 was removed in the 1970s due to the energy crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if minimal lighting in other regions is for a similar reason.

Regions 4, 9, and 10 always had a decent amount of lighting around and Rochester has been the best-lit Upstate metro for quite some time.

High mast lighting is pretty rare in New York outside of toll plazas and tends to be limited to a handful of freeway-freeway interchanges. Region 4 (Rochester) is the only area that uses high mast lighting extensively, particularly along the Outer Loop and 490 east of town. Regions 3, 6, and 9 have it at a couple interchanges each.

When the I-790/NY 5/8/12/49 junction was rebuilt in the late 1980s outside of Utica, high mast lighting was used at both that junction and the junction with Oriskany Blvd farther south. All of the high masts were removed about 8 years or so ago because of issues with the foundations, apparently they weren't poured correctly and were breaking. A few of the masts were replaced, but much of the lighting was simply removed.

[kphoger]

I prefer darkness after dark.

So like our highways here in Greenville?

I've never driven that far east, so I don't know.

There's no lighting whatsoever. They are SUPER dark.

Sounds good to me, then.

And I assume it's because of the low AADT.

No, AADT has nothing to do with it.  I just don't like super-lit roads.

[tolbs17]

I prefer darkness after dark.

So like our highways here in Greenville?

I've never driven that far east, so I don't know.

There's no lighting whatsoever. They are SUPER dark.

Sounds good to me, then.

And I assume it's because of the low AADT.

No, AADT has nothing to do with it.  I just don't like super-lit roads.

Why? Most people are against it

[roadman65]

I see PennDOT replaced the I-99 mast pole lighting at Plank Road in Altoona per GSV.  Now the usual poles at regular intervals.

This seems to be the norm in Central Florida especially SR 528 lighting.

[kphoger]

Why? Most people are against it

I dislike nighttime light pollution in general.

[StogieGuy7]

It seems to me that the tall mast lighting format was most popular between the late 1970s and the early 1990s. Today, installing such a setup would seem to be controversial due to NIMBY concerns regarding light pollution. And, with modern LEDs, you can install standard masts at standard intervals while using a lot less electricity than in the past. 

Personally, I really like the new LED lighting. That said, I liked the old mercury lamps from the 60s and 70s and have always hated the pinkish fluorescents that started showing up around 1980 or so. They make everything look like crap. Even worse than San Diego's yellow bulbs.  Can't wait to see every fixture with that pinkish bulb replaced with LEDs and I won't miss them one bit.

[tolbs17]

Why? Most people are against it

I dislike nighttime light pollution in general.

Understandable but they are fixing that with new cut-off fixtures.

[roadman65]

It seems to me that the tall mast lighting format was most popular between the late 1970s and the early 1990s. Today, installing such a setup would seem to be controversial due to NIMBY concerns regarding light pollution. And, with modern LEDs, you can install standard masts at standard intervals while using a lot less electricity than in the past. 

Personally, I really like the new LED lighting. That said, I liked the old mercury lamps from the 60s and 70s and have always hated the pinkish fluorescents that started showing up around 1980 or so. They make everything look like crap. Even worse than San Diego's yellow bulbs.  Can't wait to see every fixture with that pinkish bulb replaced with LEDs and I won't miss them one bit.

That is why I hated as a kid to go Staten Island. They were the first place in the NYC metro  to implement them, and to me they looked so dismal.

Now the new LED lights are bringing back the old feel.

[kphoger]

Why? Most people are against it

I dislike nighttime light pollution in general.

Understandable but they are fixing that with new cut-off fixtures.

That only helps clear the sky above the fixtures.  It doesn't help what I actually look at, which is the space below them.

I don't like the night to be lit up.  I like darkness at night.

[tolbs17]

Why? Most people are against it

I dislike nighttime light pollution in general.

Understandable but they are fixing that with new cut-off fixtures.

That only helps clear the sky above the fixtures.  It doesn't help what I actually look at, which is the space below them.

I don't like the night to be lit up.  I like darkness at night.

So you can see the Milky Way?

[StogieGuy7]

It seems to me that the tall mast lighting format was most popular between the late 1970s and the early 1990s. Today, installing such a setup would seem to be controversial due to NIMBY concerns regarding light pollution. And, with modern LEDs, you can install standard masts at standard intervals while using a lot less electricity than in the past. 

Personally, I really like the new LED lighting. That said, I liked the old mercury lamps from the 60s and 70s and have always hated the pinkish fluorescents that started showing up around 1980 or so. They make everything look like crap. Even worse than San Diego's yellow bulbs.  Can't wait to see every fixture with that pinkish bulb replaced with LEDs and I won't miss them one bit.

That is why I hated as a kid to go Staten Island. They were the first place in the NYC metro  to implement them, and to me they looked so dismal.

Now the new LED lights are bringing back the old feel.

Exactly my opinion.  And, when they first went into use, in many cases they were first installed in high crime areas of cities (not that Staten Island is that) which gave an even creepier vibe to them. Then the epidemic of pink spread everywhere and here we are. Even the 2 streetlights in my semi-rural neighborhood are of this type. Bleech - I'd rather have darkness.  The ones along the main roads, however, are the new LED and they look great.

[kphoger]

Why? Most people are against it

I dislike nighttime light pollution in general.

Understandable but they are fixing that with new cut-off fixtures.

That only helps clear the sky above the fixtures.  It doesn't help what I actually look at, which is the space below them.

I don't like the night to be lit up.  I like darkness at night.

So you can see the Milky Way?

Last I checked, the Milky Way is up in the sky, so it's irrelevant to what I said.

[jemacedo9]

I see PennDOT replaced the I-99 mast pole lighting at Plank Road in Altoona per GSV.  Now the usual poles at regular intervals.

.

PennDOT has been taking down high-mast lighting in at least several places in SE PA (District 6-0).

[tolbs17]

I wonder why this interchange has no lighting.

[ErmineNotyours]

Even worse than San Diego's yellow bulbs. 

Do you have GSVs of these yellow bulb installations?  I remember them clearly from my trip to San Diego, but I can't find them when looking at daytime views.  I remember them looking like fluorescent tubes wrapped in yellow, and I remember them in the zoo parking lot and from a neighborhood visible from I-5 south of town.

[jp the roadgeek]

CT is pretty well lit.  Here are the heavy hitters:

I-84: NY Border to Exit 8 (8 miles), Exit 10-11 (2 miles),  Exit 17-30 (12 miles), Exit 33-65 (24 miles).  About half of the 97 miles lit

I-91: I-95 to Exit 13 (11 miles), CT 9 to MA (31 miles).  42 of 58 miles lit

I-95: NY to Exit 55 (55 mi), Exit 68-70 (3 miles), Exit 74-81 (4 miles), Exit 82-90 (12 miles). 74 of 111 miles

I-291: Entire length

I-384: I-84 to just past CT 83 exit

I-395: Exits 13-14 (1 mi)

I-691/CT 66: I-84 to CT 10 and CT 71 to end

CT 2: I-84 to CT 94 and CT 32 concurrency through Norwich

CT 9: Area near I-95, Exits 10-18, north of Exit 21 (about 16-17 mi)

CT 8: I-95 to CT 15, Exit 13-17, Exit 24-35, Exit 43-44

CT 15: Very spotty.  Only meat Sikorsky Bridge and the Hartford portion.

[jaidenscott316]

In these locations lighting is needed

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5715676,-86.6371006,925m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3567316,-86.8525497,1103m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.324,-87.0473638,780m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2791636,-87.0946385,781m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7188637,-86.8297193,951m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6109965,-85.7896312,925m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6456429,-85.504258,231m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.583936,-85.926073,519m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu

[Quillz]

I like darkness at night. And too much lighting works against you at night, anyway. Between your dashboard, on-board entertainment, street lights, other headlights, too much brightness and it's glaring and hard to see.

I made a topic about Alaska's reflective poles. I really like those. In many stretches of highway, instead of lights, there are reflective poles that work like standard road signs. So they only light up when you get close to them. Combined with retroreflective lane markers, that's perfect. I find it easier to see the road with this scenario as opposed to lighting.

[mgk920]

I'm thinking that the presence, or lack thereof, of freeway lighting in major metros (ie, Los Angeles, CA) has a LOT to do with the likelihood of the wiring for that lighting being stolen.

Mike

[hobsini2]

I always knew as a kid when I fell asleep in the car when we got to Milwaukee because that was the only place there was lighting on the highway. Not even Madison did that on 90/94.

[SEWIGuy]

I always knew as a kid when I fell asleep in the car when we got to Milwaukee because that was the only place there was lighting on the highway. Not even Madison did that on 90/94.

But they did on the Beltline.

[Big John]

Wisconsin used to be really stingy on freeway lighting, but have in the last 20 years have considerably increased lighting in high-traffic or more hazardous areas.

[Great Lakes Roads]

I've noticed that INDOT has started putting lighting on the interchange ramps... Right now, there are contracts to install lighting on the Kokomo section of US 31 as well as the rural sections of interstates outside of the major cities.

[andrepoiy]

Ontario appears to now be more liberal in its application of freeway lighting, specifically in recently widened sections of freeways with rural surrounding land uses (but with AADTs that are more akin to urban freeways).

E.g: Highway 400 between King Road and Major Mackenzie Drive


https://goo.gl/maps/1nZRduz5AWRrAxsR6