While New Mexico law permits the installation of logo signs in urban areas, no engineering study has ever been performed to install logo signs on Albuquerque freeways. Considering that many larger metro areas such as Phoenix, Denver, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Hampton Roads, and Orlando have logo signs on their freeways, I don't see why Albuquerque shouldn't have logo signs on its freeways. I actually made a suggestion to an NMDOT rep that logo signs should be installed on Albuquerque area freeways since ADOT is installing them on Phoenix area freeways.
I think most exits along I-25 and I-40 have ample space for logo signs, with the exception of I-25 between Gibson and the Big I, and possibly I-40 between Rio Grande and the Big I. I think Paseo Del Norte can also have logo signs for the Coors Blvd (NM 45) exit in the westbound direction, since there are lots of services at that exit.
So, does anyone think logo signs should be installed on Albuquerque freeways?
Unfortunately, at City-Data in the Albuquerque forum, most users in that forum seem to be opposed to them, preferring to use their smartphone while driving at highway speeds, or wasting fuel by exiting and parking to look up restaurants on their smartphones.
IMO NMDOT and Interstate Logos New Mexico should still install logo signs on Albuquerque freeways, and press charges on anyone opposed to them.
Quoteand press charges on anyone opposed to them.
Yes, I agree with this because it's not completely insane.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 23, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
and press charges on anyone opposed to them.
Okay, what is it with you and wanting to send everyone who doesn't agree with you to jail?
If nobody in albuquerque wants logo signs, then why spend the money? The city of Albuquerque has made it this long without them, so I honestly think that it will be ok.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 23, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
Unfortunately, at City-Data in the Albuquerque forum, most users in that forum seem to be opposed to them, preferring to use their smartphone while driving at highway speeds, or wasting fuel by exiting and parking to look up restaurants on their smartphones.
Probably not a representative sample of city residents, though.
Does Albuquerque restrict both billboards and overhead signs? My quick peek in GMSV shows billboards, and a few hotels and other businesses with brand signs visible from the freeway. If there are decent non-smartphone ways for travelers to find services at freeway exits, logo signs would be nice but not real necessary (much as I would prefer them, unless high service density makes logo signs impractical).
Where I most strongly favor logo signs are places that most severely restrict outdoor advertising, such as my favorite targets Vermont and Santa Barbara. For them, I'd be tempted to force them to accept at least one form of outdoor advertising, including logo signs (they might view that as an offensive "Sophie's Choice", but tough). But Albuquerque doesn't seem to be one of those places.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on November 23, 2015, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 23, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
and press charges on anyone opposed to them.
Okay, what is it with you and wanting to send everyone who doesn't agree with you to jail?
If nobody in albuquerque wants logo signs, then why spend the money? The city of Albuquerque has made it this long without them, so I honestly think that it will be ok.
Albuquerque will be the laughing stock city of the Southwest, when major metro areas in neighboring states (Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah) all have logo signs on their freeways. Plus, not having logo signs are a disservice to tourists and the state also loses on revenue generated from the program. It is a lose-lose situation for both tourists and the state.
This makes me wonder, will there be opposition in Tucson when they get logo signs? The Tucson area is a lot more liberal politically than Phoenix.
QuoteAlbuquerque will be the laughing stock city of the Southwest, when major metro areas in neighboring states (Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah) all have logo signs on their freeways.
I know I, for one, reserve all my laughs for those cities that don't have logo signs. You're probably right, Albuquerque better adopt logo signs or they'll be the next Detroit.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 23, 2015, 08:16:58 PM
will there be opposition in Tucson when they get logo signs?
I sure hope not, as there aren't any prisons big enough to accomodate Tuscon's population.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on November 23, 2015, 10:16:44 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 23, 2015, 08:16:58 PM
will there be opposition in Tucson when they get logo signs?
I sure hope not, as there aren't any prisons big enough to accomodate Tuscon's population.
I'd propose taking a two step approach to solve this dillemma.
1) Give Tucson back to Mexico
2) Elect Donald Trump
Donald Trump will get the Mexicans to pay to build a wall around Tucson for us, effectively converting it into a prison.
Apple Carplay/Android Auto make it easier than ever to find a point of interest nearby, and also provide you with directions. If you don't have a brand new car, Siri/Google Now/Cortana can easily find you a POI without having to look at your phone. My point being, logo signs have served their purpose, but no one who's learning to drive these days is going to use them. General service signs are okay, more so in rural areas, but there's no reason in 2015 or '16 to introduce a logo sign program that is arguably less useful than ever before in history.
EDIT: Logo signs have their place, don't get me wrong. I just think that place is rural areas, not urban areas.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2015, 11:24:09 PM
Apple Carplay/Android Auto make it easier than ever to find a point of interest nearby, and also provide you with directions. If you don't have a brand new car, Siri/Google Now/Cortana can easily find you a POI without having to look at your phone. My point being, logo signs have served their purpose, but no one who's learning to drive these days is going to use them.
What about us old farts, who learned to drive decades ago, are still behind the wheel, and still will be in significant numbers for awhile? Logo signs are a nice low-tech and low-cost way to guide such travelers.
BTW, all of the technologies you mention, except Siri (through TV commercials), are unfamiliar to me. I doubt any of them will work on either of my vehicles (the newer of the two is almost eight years old), or my dumb flip phone. Do not overestimate the technological sophistication of your elders.
Quote from: oscar on November 23, 2015, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2015, 11:24:09 PM
Apple Carplay/Android Auto make it easier than ever to find a point of interest nearby, and also provide you with directions. If you don't have a brand new car, Siri/Google Now/Cortana can easily find you a POI without having to look at your phone. My point being, logo signs have served their purpose, but no one who's learning to drive these days is going to use them.
What about us old farts, who learned to drive decades ago, are still behind the wheel, and still will be in significant numbers for awhile? Logo signs are a nice low-tech and low-cost way to guide such travelers.
BTW, all of the technologies you mention, except Siri (through TV commercials), are unfamiliar to me. I doubt any of them will work on either of my vehicles (the newer of the two is almost eight years old), or my dumb flip phone. Do not overestimate the technological sophistication of your elders.
Smart phones are being adopted at an increasingly rapid rate [1] (http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tmt-2014prediction-smartphone.pdf)[2] (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/) these days. Even like six or seven years ago, it was easier to make the case for logo signs. But now, I just don't think any reasonable amount of people use them. I bet even you'll own a smart phone soon enough. That dumb flip phone has to die eventually (although credit where credit's due, those things are tough).
The one thing that I have to concede is that logos signs are quite cheap, and it's easy to condone their use when they cost so little. But, I still don't like the extra roadside clutter they bring, and I'm not convinced the legalese surrounding who gets a logo and who doesn't is very fair
per se, and by the time NM gets around to sorting all that shit out, everyone will own a smartphone.
FWIW, all four of my grandparents use iPhones. My Grandpa was actually smart enough to bluetooth his phone to his car to stream music. Give the old folks some credit, eh? lol
Quote from: jakeroot on November 24, 2015, 01:34:22 AM
Quote from: oscar on November 23, 2015, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2015, 11:24:09 PM
Apple Carplay/Android Auto make it easier than ever to find a point of interest nearby, and also provide you with directions. If you don't have a brand new car, Siri/Google Now/Cortana can easily find you a POI without having to look at your phone. My point being, logo signs have served their purpose, but no one who's learning to drive these days is going to use them.
What about us old farts, who learned to drive decades ago, are still behind the wheel, and still will be in significant numbers for awhile? Logo signs are a nice low-tech and low-cost way to guide such travelers.
BTW, all of the technologies you mention, except Siri (through TV commercials), are unfamiliar to me. I doubt any of them will work on either of my vehicles (the newer of the two is almost eight years old), or my dumb flip phone. Do not overestimate the technological sophistication of your elders.
Smart phones are being adopted at an increasingly rapid rate [1] (http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tmt-2014prediction-smartphone.pdf)[2] (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/) these days. Even like six or seven years ago, it was easier to make the case for logo signs. But now, I just don't think any reasonable amount of people use them. I bet even you'll own a smart phone soon enough. That dumb flip phone has to die eventually (although credit where credit's due, those things are tough).
The one thing that I have to concede is that logos signs are quite cheap, and it's easy to condone their use when they cost so little. But, I still don't like the extra roadside clutter they bring, and I'm not convinced the legalese surrounding who gets a logo and who doesn't is very fair per se, and by the time NM gets around to sorting all that shit out, everyone will own a smartphone.
FWIW, all four of my grandparents use iPhones. My Grandpa was actually smart enough to bluetooth his phone to his car to stream music. Give the old folks some credit, eh? lol
I still use a Motorola RAZR and I'm only middle-aged and not a full-blown old fogey yet. I'm with Oscar on this one: Sure, I'll get a smartphone soon enough (my wife is thanking the heavens), but I've seen far too many people overestimate how much technology has actually penetrated the travelling public. Anyone can be reminded of that just by seeing how many people refuse to adopt E-ZPass, just as one example. Roadside logo signs are a small price to pay to accommodate those who haven't upgraded yet and probably will not.
In fairness, I'm 27, use a smartphone, and pay attention to logo signs. They're really helpful in rural areas, though I do question how necessary that are in urban areas unless paired with a strong sign code minimizing issue advertising, in which case they have obvious aesthetic benefits.
I know in Arizona, even with the widespread use of smartphones, the logo sign program remains profitable to date with strong participation. If smartphones really made logo signs unnecessary, why would businesses even pony up to get a sign? Apparently the many businesses who choose to be on logo signs disagree. I have zero doubt that the state legislature and ADOT factored in the competition with smartphones when the restriction of logo signs to rural areas was repealed. Apparently ADOT believes that the urban program will further increase their revenue where there is more competition, thus the higher rates are warranted. In fact, Arizona's logo sign rates (especially the urban rates at higher AADT interchanges) are higher than most states since the program is entirely state run, rather than contracted to an outside vendor.
You know, sometimes the POIs aren't in the smartphone/GPS...
I still use logo signs.
Logo signs are absolutely useful even in the age of the smartphone. If you are driving by yourself and you need gas or food or lodging, the logo sign will tell you what's available at the exit. The alternative would be for these people to look up the info on their smartphone. Hopefully, they'd be smart enough to do so while they're stopped in a safe area. More likely, they'll either do it while driving or possibly in the break down shoulder.
So I say yes to logo signs, even in urban areas.
These are the scenarios where I think logo signs are appropriate (see images):
Basically, logos signs should be reserved for areas whereby missing a service could be detrimental to the health and well-being of a vehicle's occupants.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVT8ZCeh.png&hash=da471eafc527145390f49e5b19c05f3a75c4f3e1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9AN88LV.png&hash=41e01af608bc58b6b951f0d580c778da3b3fe70c)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2015, 04:41:41 PM
These are the scenarios where I think logo signs are appropriate (see images):
Basically, logos signs should be reserved for areas whereby missing a service could be detrimental to the health and well-being of a vehicle's occupants.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVT8ZCeh.png&hash=da471eafc527145390f49e5b19c05f3a75c4f3e1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9AN88LV.png&hash=41e01af608bc58b6b951f0d580c778da3b3fe70c)
If I'm not from the area, unfamiliar with the road, and the traffic is heave, I am NOT getting my phone out and use an app to see if there is a McDonalds at the next exit.
As probably mentioned upstream, my gripe is with the rules (or lack of them). I've gotten off at an exit only to find the desired destination is 2-3 MILES from the exit.
Quote from: rte66man on November 26, 2015, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2015, 04:41:41 PM
These are the scenarios where I think logo signs are appropriate (see images):
Basically, logos signs should be reserved for areas whereby missing a service could be detrimental to the health and well-being of a vehicle's occupants.
If I'm not from the area, unfamiliar with the road, and the traffic is heave, I am NOT getting my phone out and use an app to see if there is a McDonalds at the next exit.
As probably mentioned upstream, my gripe is with the rules (or lack of them). I've gotten off at an exit only to find the desired destination is 2-3 MILES from the exit.
Yes, and some times you want a specific business as well.
And I can tell you that in many big cities, there are very few gas stations in Downtown. And the hotels there are pretty expensive. So knowing in advance that an establishment catring to mororists exists is a big help.
And the biggest thing that I desire on a roadtrip are supermarkets. I wish those would be placed on logo signs as well.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2015, 04:41:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9AN88LV.png&hash=41e01af608bc58b6b951f0d580c778da3b3fe70c)
If you exit in downtown Bellevue and head for the tall buildings, you don't see a gas station. If I were running on fumes on 405, I'd really appreciate a logo sign telling me to get off on 8th and which way to turn at the exit.
Sorry to bump, but New Mexico's logo sign contract is currently up for bid. According to the RFP document, there are provisions to place logo signs at urban and suburban interchanges where spacing allows.
Also, the RFP document requires that in the new contract that NMDOT receives a minimum of $730,000 of revenue from the program per year, increased from the minimum of $500,000 per year in the existing contract.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 16, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Sorry to bump, but New Mexico's logo sign contract is currently up for bid. According to the RFP document, there are provisions to place logo signs at urban and suburban interchanges where spacing allows.
Also, the RFP document requires that in the new contract that NMDOT receives a minimum of $730,000 of revenue from the program per year, increased from the minimum of $500,000 per year in the existing contract.
How much does New Mexico charge each business for the logo?
I don't mind logo signs at all, although I prefer to use them when searching for a gas station. The rest, not so much. I probably planned my itinerary well enough not to need it for food/lodging. At some point, the city is big enough where there's enough choices, such that these signs aren't needed among the other sights and signage.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 23, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
IMO NMDOT and Interstate Logos New Mexico should still install logo signs on Albuquerque freeways, and press charges on anyone opposed to them.
I just needed to quote this for posterity, and because you probably need to take a nap after typing this out.
Quote from: rte66man on August 24, 2017, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 16, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Sorry to bump, but New Mexico's logo sign contract is currently up for bid. According to the RFP document, there are provisions to place logo signs at urban and suburban interchanges where spacing allows.
Also, the RFP document requires that in the new contract that NMDOT receives a minimum of $730,000 of revenue from the program per year, increased from the minimum of $500,000 per year in the existing contract.
How much does New Mexico charge each business for the logo?
Current rates are $850 per direction annually if below 30,000 AADT, and $1200 per direction annually if above 30,000 AADT. Rates include both mainline and ramp signage.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 24, 2017, 11:14:12 AM
Quote from: rte66man on August 24, 2017, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 16, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Sorry to bump, but New Mexico's logo sign contract is currently up for bid. According to the RFP document, there are provisions to place logo signs at urban and suburban interchanges where spacing allows.
Also, the RFP document requires that in the new contract that NMDOT receives a minimum of $730,000 of revenue from the program per year, increased from the minimum of $500,000 per year in the existing contract.
How much does New Mexico charge each business for the logo?
Current rates are $850 per direction annually if below 30,000 AADT, and $1200 per direction annually if above 30,000 AADT. Rates include both mainline and ramp signage.
Are there rules as to how close the business has to be to the interchange? IMO, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise if they are more than a mile from the interchange in question, even less in urban areas.
Quote from: rte66man on August 31, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 24, 2017, 11:14:12 AM
Quote from: rte66man on August 24, 2017, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 16, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Sorry to bump, but New Mexico's logo sign contract is currently up for bid. According to the RFP document, there are provisions to place logo signs at urban and suburban interchanges where spacing allows.
Also, the RFP document requires that in the new contract that NMDOT receives a minimum of $730,000 of revenue from the program per year, increased from the minimum of $500,000 per year in the existing contract.
How much does New Mexico charge each business for the logo?
Current rates are $850 per direction annually if below 30,000 AADT, and $1200 per direction annually if above 30,000 AADT. Rates include both mainline and ramp signage.
Are there rules as to how close the business has to be to the interchange? IMO, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise if they are more than a mile from the interchange in question, even less in urban areas.
I agree that there should be rules, but if you're the only gas for 50 miles I'd like to see signs even if it's 5 miles off the highway. Maybe with a distance away, and if they're open 24 hours.
Quote from: rte66man on August 31, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 24, 2017, 11:14:12 AM
Quote from: rte66man on August 24, 2017, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 16, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Sorry to bump, but New Mexico's logo sign contract is currently up for bid. According to the RFP document, there are provisions to place logo signs at urban and suburban interchanges where spacing allows.
Also, the RFP document requires that in the new contract that NMDOT receives a minimum of $730,000 of revenue from the program per year, increased from the minimum of $500,000 per year in the existing contract.
How much does New Mexico charge each business for the logo?
Current rates are $850 per direction annually if below 30,000 AADT, and $1200 per direction annually if above 30,000 AADT. Rates include both mainline and ramp signage.
Are there rules as to how close the business has to be to the interchange? IMO, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise if they are more than a mile from the interchange in question, even less in urban areas.
New Mexico uses an incremental system based on 3 mile increments up to 15 miles, where if any eligible business is located within the incremental range, other businesses beyond that range will not qualify. For example, if there are no eligible businesses within 3 miles but there are within 6 miles, then 6 miles is the limit for all businesses for that exit.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 31, 2017, 05:01:54 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 31, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
Are there rules as to how close the business has to be to the interchange? IMO, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise if they are more than a mile from the interchange in question, even less in urban areas.
New Mexico uses an incremental system based on 3 mile increments up to 15 miles, where if any eligible business is located within the incremental range, other businesses beyond that range will not qualify. For example, if there are no eligible businesses within 3 miles but there are within 6 miles, then 6 miles is the limit for all businesses for that exit.
Based on what Pink Jazz said, New Mexico's policy mirrors the specific service standards and guidelines set in the 2009 MUTCD. Except for 24-hour pharmacies, the range can be extended in 3 mile increments (out to 15) for a particular type of service at an interchange.
I think that lower tiers should be applied. Having a 1-mile, 2-mile and 3-mile increment at first, then extending in 3-mile increments would be better.
Quote from: roadfro on September 01, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 31, 2017, 05:01:54 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 31, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
Are there rules as to how close the business has to be to the interchange? IMO, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise if they are more than a mile from the interchange in question, even less in urban areas.
New Mexico uses an incremental system based on 3 mile increments up to 15 miles, where if any eligible business is located within the incremental range, other businesses beyond that range will not qualify. For example, if there are no eligible businesses within 3 miles but there are within 6 miles, then 6 miles is the limit for all businesses for that exit.
Based on what Pink Jazz said, New Mexico's policy mirrors the specific service standards and guidelines set in the 2009 MUTCD. Except for 24-hour pharmacies, the range can be extended in 3 mile increments (out to 15) for a particular type of service at an interchange.
I think that lower tiers should be applied. Having a 1-mile, 2-mile and 3-mile increment at first, then extending in 3-mile increments would be better.
New Mexico's program does not include 24-hour pharmacies.
Arizona's rules are similar, although they set the lowest tier for Camping to 5 miles. Also, Arizona does allow some businesses beyond the incremental range to sign up if there is available space on the sign, however, those within the range have priority.
I just read through the updated RFP document, and one thing that NMDOT is requiring in this new contract is for the contractor to provide a reduced fee for small businesses. This should encourage participation of smaller non-chain businesses in the program.
The bidding has closed as of September 12. It will be interesting to know which companies have bid for the new contract. I am pretty sure there was a bid from the existing contractor New Mexico Logos, Inc, but I wonder what other companies have bid.
As with all signage in New Mexico, logo signs are a bit of a crap shoot in the Land of Enchantment.
Once, while trekking north on I-25 toward Albuquerque, I was ready for a bite to eat in Truth of Consequences.
Aware of a McDonald's on I-25 at Exit 79 (the north end of the Business Loop), I was surprised to see a McDonald's logo sign at Exit 75 (the south end of the Business Loop).
https://goo.gl/maps/wXPgL1zgDJQ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/wXPgL1zgDJQ2)
"Oh, wow," I thought. "Let's check out this new McDonald's on the south side of town because, surely, even in New Mexico, they wouldn't allow the logo to be placed at such a location as to require you to exit four miles south of your destination and wind your way through Downtown to get to a restaurant you can literally see from the interstate four miles later."
As I descended the ramp, I was greeted with this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/DPs5nnXgobD2 (https://goo.gl/maps/DPs5nnXgobD2)) confirming my worst suspicions.
Incredulous, I drove on. "Surely, there's something I'm missing. Surely. Surely!"
Twenty minutes later, after driving almost all of the I-25 business loop through Downtown and only a few hundred yards short of returning to mainline I-25, I arrived at this McDonalds.
https://goo.gl/maps/MLmXoYErdF52
So, my vote is no. Based strictly on past performance.