Route 100 gets darker as part of pilot project
If you drive regularly along Route 100 in Howard County, you might just notice the lighting along the road is a little dimmer than it used to be.
The State Highway Administration says it had cut back its overhead lighting on a 6-mile stretch of the road between Coca-Cola Drive near the Anne Arundel County line and the western terminus of the limited-access highway at U.S. 29. According to the agency, about 75 lights have been "deactivated" as part of a pilot project to evaluate whether the state will be able to cut the amount of power its uses to illuminate state roads without compromising safety.
For now, the light poles remain in place. But if the test is successful, the SHA may remove them and recycle them in other locations. The primary aim, said SHA spokesman Charlie Gischlar, is to reduce energy consumption as a "green" initiative. But he said any cutback in energy use could also yield savings in operating costs.
Another important consideration, Gischlar said, is safety. If the state can reduce the lighting, he said, it can also cut the number of poles that vehicles can run into.
"It's fewer fixed objects on the side of the road," he said.
Gischlar said that if the results from the year-long test are favorable, the state could look at reducing lighting on other highways. He said Route 100 wash chosen largely because it is a relatively new road -- opened in the late 1990s -- where the lighting exceeds federal requirements.
Gischlar said the SHA is keeping its lighting at past levels at certain "decision points" -- near interchanges, bridge and curves -- but cutting back in other places. He said SHA engineers are confident they can reduce lighting without any negative impact on safety because modern headlights are much more advanced than the "glorified flashlights" on cars when federal lighting standards were originally set. In addition, he said, the reflective quality of road signs and other markings has improved in recent decades.
Another important test of whether the experiment worked is how the public views it. You can tell the SHA how you feel or you can share your views with Getting There.
So what do you think? Did you even notice the reduction? Do you feel any more or any less safe? Do you prefer a really bright highway at night or would you prefer some glare reduction? Please share your thoughts.
Comments
It seems to me they did not need to take this exercise at all, and rather just look at portions of the Baltimore Beltway particularly near Perring Parkway. Long stretches of lights have not worked there for over a year - i'm guessing because of underground electrical issues, and budget cuts not allowing for repairs.
I do not like that section of road, I can see reducing lighting in rural portions of the state, where roads and interchanges are still lit as heavily as urban ones are, but on places like 100, or the beltway, I am against much reduction in the lighting. I'd be curious to know how many total lights are in that area to compare it with the number that have been disarmed. Is there a way of seeing which ones are still working vs not?
Posted by: Lights Out | January 14, 2011 8:31 AM
In terms of driving - get rid of them. Street lights create glare, as well as shadows, and actually make it harder to see the road. Your car lights provide all the illumination that you need.
As for safety, I can see how the lights will make people feel more secure if their car has broken down by the side of the road. Not sure those few instances warrant the cost of operating the lights, though.
Posted by: Zevonista | January 14, 2011 10:22 AM
I've been talking about this for 10+ years. I have always said "Why don't they turn off every other light on the hiway to free money". The other thought I always had was turn off the lights at 3am. That way the drunks can still see the road when they choose to drive drunk.
Either way, it's a great idea and there is no reason to be using all of that energy to be powering street lights.
Posted by: Phillip | January 14, 2011 11:02 AM
Apropos of lighting, what can you tell us about the recent lack of lighting on the Howard Street access to I-395/95? It's an ongoing hazard during my early morning south-bound commute!
Posted by: BankStreet | January 14, 2011 11:14 AM
The SHA should do the same at the I-83 Weigh Station in Parkton. They keep those damn lights on ALL NIGHT LONG, even though the station is never open past early afternoon.
I even went so far as to write the governor once, to no avail. Not only are they wasting taxpayer money, they are creating immense volumes of light pollution.
Posted by: Gunpowder Chronicle | January 14, 2011 7:45 PM
I wish the SHA would explore some more innovative solutions here.
For example, they could replace the existing high-pressure sodium lamps with LEDs. While LED roadway lighting was considered "exotic" until not too long ago, it is now being offered by all the major luminaire manufacturers (see GE lighting's web site, for instance). I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but IIRC they use less than half of the energy of HPS lamps for a given light output. Not to mention, they last longer, which translates into risk reduction because maintenance crews would not have to be setting up work zones to change burnt out lamps as frequently. Besides, I think SHA has already switched to LEDs for overhead sign luminaires; why not for roadway illumination, too?
Also, I rode this section of MD 100 early yesterday AM on my way to catch a flight at BWI and noticed that nearly all of the existing luminaires are at "decision points" (read: interchanges). There was very little lighting between interchanges, like you see on the rebuilt sections of the beltway (e.g., near Wilkins Ave and up near Greenspring Ave). So I don't know where these 75 non-decision-point luminaires were found.
Which brings me to my final point: how are citizens going to be able to differentiate malfunctioning lights from those that are intentionally disconnected? Maybe they need to attach a small sign to each pole in this project ("THIS LIGHT HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED TO SAVE POWER"). At the I-95/MD 100 interchange, which is exclusively lit by "high mast" lights, only those on the east side of the interchange were lit. Were the ones on the west side intentionally disconnected or malfunctioning? I have no way of knowing.
Posted by: Traffic Engineer | January 17, 2011 11:23 AM
Can we get rid of the lighting for overhead highway signs as well? Most states use retroreflective sheeting that doesn't require lighting.
Posted by: Jimbo | January 18, 2011 9:09 AM
Hello Mike,
Sorry we're just now getting back to you on one of the comments about lighting. SHA uses high efficiency commercial grade light bulbs that use about the same amount of energy as LED light bulbs. LED light bulbs cost substantially more than the commercial grade bulbs and switching to LED bulbs would also require new casings because the current ones are not compatible. As technology improves and as the cost of LED bulbs decreases, SHA will continue evaluate this technology for conversion.
As far as lights being out in various places, citizens can report that to SHA at www.roads.maryland.gov and click "contact us."
FYI - SHA is converting all 3,500 traffic signal systems and bulbs to LED by the end of 2013. The upgrades are in tandem with the signal maintenance schedule.
Addiitonally, many lights for signs will be converted to LED.
Thanks - Valerie Burnette Edgar, SHA Director of Communications
Posted by: Valerie Burnette Edgar | January 25, 2011 9:43 AM