Why are the light always out on I-20 between the connector and western half of I-285? (electric bill)

[equinox63]

Why are the light always out on I-20 between the connector and the western half of I-285? Some nights, it's pitch black on portions of I-20 eastbound toward downtown from I-285.

[0nyxStation]

Originally Posted by equinox63

Why are the light always out on I-20 between the connector and the western half of I-285? Some nights, it's pitch black on portions of I-20 eastbound toward downtown from I-285.

Here is everything you need to know Equinox

https://youtu.be/fw0uz88E2gI

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by equinox63

Why are the light always out on I-20 between the connector and the western half of I-285? Some nights, it's pitch black on portions of I-20 eastbound toward downtown from I-285.

There is already a thread on lights on the highways: http://www.city-data.com/forum/atlan...ats-issue.html

If a city wants lights on the highways, they have to pay for them.

In the city, other things take higher-priority in the budget than lights on highways that will mostly serve non-residents. Most suburban counties choose to pay for no lights at all.

If you want to fix it, change control of highway lights to GDOT.

[DirkMcGirt]

The plural of light is lights.

[equinox63]

Originally Posted by DirkMcGirt

The plural of light is lights.

Thanks. I always thought it was lytez. That's what happens when you click post before proofreading. I hope it didn't confuse you into thinking I was talking about that one light on I-20.

[equinox63]

Originally Posted by jsvh

There is already a thread on lights on the highways: http://www.city-data.com/forum/atlan...ats-issue.html

If you want to fix it, change control of highway lights to GDOT.

I'm not sure how one does that...

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by equinox63

I'm not sure how one does that...

jsvh is proposing that the state pay to operate freeway lighting instead of the local jurisdiction. Currently, the state pays to install lighting at the request of a city/county, but the latter is responsible for paying the electric bill.

[equinox63]

Originally Posted by Gulch

jsvh is proposing that the state pay to operate freeway lighting instead of the local jurisdiction. Currently, the state pays to install lighting at the request of a city/county, but the latter is responsible for paying the electric bill.

I understand. The statement seemed like there was something we can do to encourage the GDOT to handle it. Thanks though...

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by equinox63

I understand. The statement seemed like there was something we can do to encourage the GDOT to handle it. Thanks though...

If the point of this thread is what you can, personally, do and not what we "as a society" can do, then I am sure no one will have a problem from personally footing the bill for all the repairs and electricity costs.

But if you don't want to do that, write your elected state officials.