Should there be lights on overhead signs?

[tolbs17]

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


Raleigh


No lights
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7762757,-78.5736052,3a,33.8y,5.44h,95.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scRYL3gOt9yN95Hi2fvpssw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

With lights
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7762875,-78.5735938,3a,42y,8.62h,94.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_84WaaTFBj2-fu5VYZJCQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1


_____________________________________________________________________________

Charlotte


No lights
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2733041,-80.8319403,3a,21.8y,268.38h,100.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXjKAVD7l895TP2erORyQvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

With lights
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2733764,-80.8317847,3a,22y,256.3h,97.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2BYBxnOZcn5PHHzrAlEYHQ!2e0!5s20090501T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1


______________________________________________________________________________

Rocky Mount


No lights
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9817373,-77.8709663,3a,75y,265.99h,82.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMMV1qELjci3F9zwUI5Ua9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

With lights
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9817788,-77.8710661,3a,75y,276.61h,94.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbkdHRl2jZTQRRntPnb-lfw!2e0!5s20071001T000000!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e1
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

In my opinion I think it looks cool with the lighting on still.

Do you think it's better with lighting or without lighting?

[Napsterbater]

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.

[1995hoo]

There's also the concern about ever-increasing light pollution.

[Napsterbater]

There's also the concern about ever-increasing light pollution.

Also a very valid point.

[kphoger]

I voted No.  However, I do wish some agencies did a better job of making their signs reflective.

[MNHighwayMan]

I voted No.  However, I do wish some agencies did a better job of making their signs reflective maintaining their signs in general.

Fixed that for you. California and some northeast states are the worst offenders on this topic.

Also, I too voted no on this, because prismatic sheeting technology has advanced enough to make them completely unnecessary.

[kphoger]

Actually, I was thinking recent sign installations here in Wichita that, after dark, have some invisible letters and portions of route shields.

[jeffandnicole]

In my opinion I think it looks cool with the lighting on still.

This should absolutely never be used for an argument for or against something.

Safety?  Sure.

Better Visibility?  Absolutely.

Cool?  No.   Highway signage should be to effectively communicate messages.  Coolness shouldn't be a factor.

In my opinion, I rarely even notice if a sign is lit or not.  If it's properly reflective, most people wouldn't notice either.

[ozarkman417]

As long as the signs are reflective, lights aren't needed. If light should need to be added, however, I think they should at least be self-sustainable (by way of solar panels, flashing stop signs use this technique). I have noticed that MoDOT has some reflectivity problems on their BGSs. While most of the sign is reflective, there are lines going across the sign that don't reflect, and as a result part of the text/shield is harder to read.

[Revive 755]

Cool?  No.   Highway signage should be to effectively communicate messages.  Coolness shouldn't be a factor.

In a way it seems like it is for some areas that use internally illuminated street name signs

[kendancy66]

I voted yes.  I was thinking that lighting signs in high traffic areas improves the safety.  But in most cases reflective signage should be enough

[GenExpwy]

You know what's really cool? Knowing the difference between their and there.

[tolbs17]

You know what's really cool? Knowing the difference between their and there.

Fixed.

[Henry]

Given that in most cases, the freeways themselves have lights (whether regular height or high-mast), and newer signs are brighter and easier to read, I don't see any reason to add lights to the signs.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky has eliminated lighting on its overhead signs, although you can still see a few vestiges of where the lights used to be mounted on a few assemblies here and there. The ones I'm most familiar with are along I-64 between I-264 and I-71.

West Virginia still has lighting on many of its reflective overheads.

[tolbs17]

Kentucky has eliminated lighting on its overhead signs, although you can still see a few vestiges of where the lights used to be mounted on a few assemblies here and there. The ones I'm most familiar with are along I-64 between I-264 and I-71.

West Virginia still has lighting on many of its reflective overheads.

Virginia also still puts lighting on their newer overhead signs!

[roadman]

Kentucky has eliminated lighting on its overhead signs, although you can still see a few vestiges of where the lights used to be mounted on a few assemblies here and there. The ones I'm most familiar with are along I-64 between I-264 and I-71.

West Virginia still has lighting on many of its reflective overheads.

Massachusetts disconnected lighting from most of its overhead signs in the early 1980s.  The remaining holdouts on the Turnpike had lighting removed when the signs and structures were replaced under the recent I-90 sign replacement projects.  The only signing that still has lighting are some of the advance signs approaching the Central Artery/Tunnel system, as well as signs within the tunnels themselves.

[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.

FDOT stopped generally installing new sign lighting just a few years ago (in new contracts so I know some older bids are still being installed, and some signs on curves still qualify for it if headlights aren't expected to hit the sign) a couple years ago, and I believe claimed they would be more proactive replacing signs, but I'll believe that when I see it: there's still plenty of really old BGS's that didn't have lighting and have no reflective attributes at all at this point.

Ironically, they seem to have gotten much more aggressive installing backlit street blades on more rural state facilities around the same time they slowed down on the BGS lighting.

[PHLBOS]

As others have mentioned but too add:
Now that reflective sheeting & lettering (one-to-ten-year-old NYSTA installs aside) on signs is pretty much common practice nationwide; as with button-copy, the use of sign lighting is no longer necessary or needed.

[roadman]

@UFCKnights  Just curious.  What grade of sheeting is FLDOT specifying for their signs?

[DaBigE]

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.

[Scott5114]

I'm going to buck the trend here and say I'd prefer if lights were still installed. As mentioned above, there can be quite a lot of performance variance when it comes to unlit signage. This is exacerbated by car headlights being at different levels/aimed differently/different type of bulb/etc. Having lit signs guarantees uniform legibility to all drivers.

[JoePCool14]

I originally voted "I don't care" in the poll a few days ago, and I think I still feel that way. Aesthetically, I think it's cool to see signs lit, whether they be BGS or your average Stop sign. However, there's a lot of things that I think would be "cool", but certainly aren't practical or reasonable. This is one of those things. I'd prefer that money be used to light the road itself, or at least interchanges where lighting might be more useful.

[odditude]

there are also reflectivity issues when there's condensation on signs - is this less of an issue on modern sheeting?

[thenetwork]

I am old enough to remember in the mid-70's, during the "Energy Crisis".  ODOT (Ohio) went as far to either keep the lighting for the overhead signage turned off and/or take out one of the two florescent light tubes which usually lit up the sign.

When the crisis was over, ODOT was very slow to re-light or replace missing bulbs.  It usually took a full sign replacement upgrade to get overheads lit again, ditching the florescents completely for mercury vapor light fixtures.

Anyways, back to the OP.  I think a lot of it has to do more with advancements in reflectivity sheeting over the years and the gradual demise of button-copy than it does with "light pollution" or advancements in headlight technology.  With both the background/lettering/shield reflectivity and how long it can last nowadays, it eliminated the need for overhead lighting assistance -- if done properly <coughcoughNewYorkcoughcough>

I still miss older button copy signs that when unlit, looked like white lettering on a black background at night.  California and South Carolina signs come to mind.