Poll
Question:
Should their be lights on overhead signs?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 20
Option 2: No
votes: 28
Option 3: Don't care
votes: 10
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?
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 11:03:31 AM
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.
There's also the concern about ever-increasing light pollution.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2019, 03:14:44 PM
There's also the concern about ever-increasing light pollution.
Also a very valid point.
I voted No. However, I do wish some agencies did a better job of making their signs reflective.
Quote from: kphoger on December 10, 2019, 03:16:37 PM
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.
Actually, I was thinking recent sign installations here in Wichita that, after dark, have some invisible letters and portions of route shields.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 11:03:31 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 10, 2019, 03:56:45 PM
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
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
You know what's really cool? Knowing the difference between their and there. :poke:
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 11, 2019, 04:18:30 AM
You know what's really cool? Knowing the difference between their and there. :poke:
Fixed.
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.
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2019, 04:01:31 PM
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!
Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2019, 04:01:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Napsterbater on December 10, 2019, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 11:03:31 AM
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.
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.
@UFCKnights Just curious. What grade of sheeting is FLDOT specifying for their signs?
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 12, 2019, 10:35:27 AM
Quote from: Napsterbater on December 10, 2019, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 11:03:31 AM
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.
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.
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.
there are also reflectivity issues when there's condensation on signs - is this less of an issue on modern sheeting?
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.
Quote from: DaBigE on December 12, 2019, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 12, 2019, 10:35:27 AM
Quote from: Napsterbater on December 10, 2019, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 11:03:31 AM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2019, 06:05:17 PM
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.
I voted "Don't care". It doesn't matter to me whether an overhead sign has lights or not.
Most urban overhead BGSs in Utah put up before 2012 have lights on them. About half of them work.
Quote from: DaBigE on December 12, 2019, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 12, 2019, 10:35:27 AM
Quote from: Napsterbater on December 10, 2019, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 11:03:31 AM
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.
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). (https://goo.gl/maps/SUPjo7TkVSwi1PHy7) 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.
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.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 12:18:33 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2019, 01:00:33 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 12:18:33 PM
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?
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.
The ones in Kinston still have them, as well as the ones along I-40 in Durham.
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.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 03, 2020, 03:41:05 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3066912,-76.7763561,3a,75y,97.75h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sonr51Qelly8YwGEmdRmXJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) - this one went up in summer 2018)
(And here's an MDTA example from the JFK Highway stretch of I-95 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6284867,-75.9632267,3a,47y,65.73h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg0zWI3z_lBwDjIJqghoR7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) - this one sometime in 2019)
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.
Yes. But they should be pointed at the passing traffic.
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).
I'm in favor of making improvements in sign retroreflectivity rather than installing overhead lighting.
Yeah, Ontario has no lights on any overhead sign as they are all reflective enough
Seems like New Jersey still has them and still puts them on the signs.
Not all of them though
Quote from: plain on April 01, 2021, 01:44:47 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: andrepoiy on May 08, 2021, 10:30:11 PM
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?
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 09, 2021, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on May 08, 2021, 10:30:11 PM
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
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thekingshighway.ca%2FPHOTOS-7%2Fhwy401-609_lg.jpg&hash=bf1a84ee889d38b5a6622be8cb223bacf6b604a7)
Circa 1971
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thekingshighway.ca%2FPHOTOS-7%2Fhwy401-1255_lg.jpg&hash=1684b20575c05b128582eaf1eeb06304d977d35e)
Quote from: andrepoiy on May 09, 2021, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 09, 2021, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on May 08, 2021, 10:30:11 PM
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.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 09, 2021, 04:28:04 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on May 09, 2021, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 09, 2021, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on May 08, 2021, 10:30:11 PM
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.
California has also begun phasing out lights on overhead signs over the past few years. In most cases, when the lights are removed, the catwalks they are mounted to are also removed. This provides an added benefit of making it much more difficult for taggers to do their "thing" because they no longer have a platform to stand on. The only downside I've run into is that legibility goes down significantly when there is condensation on the sign panel.
Arizona actually mounted its lighting fixtures above its overhead signs, not below.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 09, 2021, 09:09:29 PM
Arizona actually mounted its lighting fixtures above its overhead signs, not below.
Which other places mount them above? I know Utah still have some mounted above, and Columbus (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9785847,-82.9761122,3a,47.7y,276.35h,92.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm0xEFCf6fgH_XhVZAXDpYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) used to do that in some installations before the last signs like that were replaced about 4-5 years ago.
Florida stuck with them for many years, but starting to remove them or leave them out of most new installs. There's a few gantries that have retained them...even excessively so.
Here's some recent ones west of Tampa on I-75:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51112941373_8fbe7882aa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSFbHT)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113818945_253478e31c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSKFAr)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51114459744_0b92fd9666_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSNY5G)
Quote from: formulanone on May 11, 2021, 07:35:31 AM
Florida stuck with them for many years, but there's a few gantries that have stuck with them...even excessively so.
Here's two recent ones west of Tampa on I-75:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51112941373_8fbe7882aa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSFbHT)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113818945_253478e31c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSKFAr)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51114459744_0b92fd9666_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSNY5G)
Gross. If anything, I wish they were below the sign, not above.
Don't really like the shadow lighting above the sign casts. I could only barely see the 81 in that 581 at first glance.
Those pictures definitely make the perfect argument against placing sign lighting above the signs. I'd also agree that the amount of lights is excessive.
^^^
Actually, those pictures make the perfect argument against those monstrosity OAPL signs. The second of the three I-75 photos shows why the traditional arrows work just fine, and those oversized OAPL signs are simply overkill and not necessary.
Quote from: odditude on December 12, 2019, 05:49:20 PM
there are also reflectivity issues when there's condensation on signs - is this less of an issue on modern sheeting?
Yes. In Texas, I have noticed several signs that are relatively new that get condensation on them and they are practically illegible. I specify Texas because part of it may be the reflective material Texas gets from it's vendors, and part maybe more, less or kind of condensation. I have seen it on not cool days so it's not just a winter/early spring thing either.
I voted yes to lights on signs because I have noticed problems, like the ones listed, with retroreflective signs. I agree that installation, maintenance and upkeep are very expensive, but they are helpful. In a given sate, we aren't talking about a whole lot of signs. Mostly freeways in urban areas. Yes, retroreflective signs do have issues, but no where near the issues unlit ground mounted button copy signs had when they had severe age on them. The missing cat eyes made the signs unreadable.
My personal opinion is that, if there's visibility/retroreflectivity issues, that's a sign (no pun intended) of a problem that can and should be corrected with a new sign, new lettering, or otherwise. In most (all?) cases, adding lighting is just a cop-out.
Quote from: webny99 on May 11, 2021, 01:13:04 PM
My personal opinion is that, if there's visibility/retroreflectivity issues, that's a sign (no pun intended) of a problem that can and should be corrected with a new sign, new lettering, or otherwise. In most (all?) cases, adding lighting is just a cop-out.
I would agree with you, except the old button copy signs with reflective route shields had the same issue with condensation that were corrected when those same style BGSs had a light assembly.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 11, 2021, 11:58:10 AM
Quote from: odditude on December 12, 2019, 05:49:20 PM
there are also reflectivity issues when there's condensation on signs - is this less of an issue on modern sheeting?
Yes. In Texas, I have noticed several signs that are relatively new that get condensation on them and they are practically illegible. I specify Texas because part of it may be the reflective material Texas gets from it's vendors, and part maybe more, less or kind of condensation. I have seen it on not cool days so it's not just a winter/early spring thing either.
I voted yes to signs because I have noticed problems, like the ones listed, with retroreflective signs. I agree that installation, maintenance and upkeep are very expensive, but they are helpful. In a given sate, we aren't talking about a whole lot of signs. Mostly freeways in urban areas. Yes, retroreflective signs do have issues, but no where near the issues unlit ground mounted button copy signs had when they had severe age on them. The missing cat eyes made the signs unreadable.
My sole visit to Texas had me leaving Texarkana before dawn, heading west on I-30. There was a slight frost that morning and some of the signs along I-30 were very hard to read because of it.
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 09, 2021, 09:16:18 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 09, 2021, 09:09:29 PM
Arizona actually mounted its lighting fixtures above its overhead signs, not below.
Which other places mount them above? I know Utah still have some mounted above, and Columbus (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9785847,-82.9761122,3a,47.7y,276.35h,92.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm0xEFCf6fgH_XhVZAXDpYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) used to do that in some installations before the last signs like that were replaced about 4-5 years ago.
Utah hasn’t put lights on any new signs installed since 2010 or so. Some sections of various Wasatch Front urban freeways do still have above-mounted lights, but good luck finding any that actually work.
My 2 cents on PA....
I don't know that the PA Turnpike has ever used lighting on overhead signs. Other than some gantries on Toll-43 that were originally built by PennDOT, I don't know I've ever seen any.
PennDOT in general has been and still is pretty inconsistent (at least from my perspective, they may have guidelines that make perfect sense to them). There are plenty of overheads that have been around for a while that never had lighting, and still some new gantries going up that still add lights. (I do think rural vs urban may be a consideration).
Also of note, here in the Pittsburgh area, there are a cluster of signs with the lights overhead instead of underneath, but they are all around the airport, so I think it's safe to say that is the reasoning in that instance (can't vouch for other states - though the one picture above with the I-275 shield does show the airport/airplane icon)
I see the reason why these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5646146,-82.4986256,3a,15y,291.32h,104.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYgSwpUFaeyMdmZodT16QBQ!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192)signs have lighting because they are old school signs and they are not retroreflective. So artificial lighting is needed on them. When they are not lit up and when your headlights reflect the sign, they are not as visible because they are not retroreflective... Most signs like those have been replaced by now. Apparently Asheville has the most oldest non-retroreflective signs in the state. NCDOT went on a roll to replace many dated signs that required lighting in like 2010 or 2011 or so, but apparently they missed Asheville...
A contract is already underway to replace these (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5920572,-79.102678,3a,41.9y,281.24h,95.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svCYRVNiLU9hdYMvdoddExg!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192) signs with more reflective sheeting, eliminating the need for attached lighting. They are prolly doing it because it just creates light pollution.
When driving on the Knightdale Bypass at night, most of the overhead sign lighting does not even work anymore and the signs are fairly dark because the lighting did not work and the signs haven't been replaced. Only the exit tabs on the signs have been replaced. But I'm sure when a rehabilitation comes, all the signs that have lighting will be removed and will have more reflective ones.
There is many (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0681609,-79.3080233,3a,33.7y,262.61h,96.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soQuuGrStobIe1WK2TijgvA!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192) more (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5962055,-78.4085966,3a,19.4y,314.88h,96.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ7gdCS8OvdzeFwKNS-9DFg!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192)signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7094235,-81.2985068,3a,75y,128.03h,93.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sW13wPAYAbVOkeW4wwLfAgw!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192) that will probably be replaced to eliminate light pollution. They are focused on using full-cutoff lighting with high mast lighting and whatnot.