Virginia governor proposes selling naming rights for roads

[NE2]

I realized that Orlando sort of has a case of this already. Republic Drive was extended north over I-4 into the Universal Orlando expansion and renamed Universal Boulevard.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1996-09-20/news/9609191013_1_republic-universal-studios-main-entrance
Though in this case it appears that the existing businesses on Republic supported the change.

[DeaconG]

Yes, I certainly look forward to the day when I can drive on the Carnival Beachline, Bank Of America's Turnpike and Amway Expressway...not!

[NE2]

Yes, I certainly look forward to the day when I can drive on the Carnival Beachline, Bank Of America's Turnpike and Amway Expressway...not!

You call it the Beachline, so why not?

[Duke87]

And never under any circumstance should a road be renamed.

Why do you hate Martin Luther King Jr.? Are you a racist? 

What honestly bothers me about all the streets named "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd" more than anything else is that it's too much of a mouthful and thus unwieldy as a name. I would go with "MLK Blvd" or "King Blvd" as a more practical alternative.

[SP Cook]

As a practical matter, people rarely use corporate names or politician names.  In most places "the stadium" is just that "the stadium", perhaps modifed by "the (team name) stadium".  Corporate naming rights are mostly just ego deals for the sponsoring entity, often coming with lots of tickets and such, which would not be applicable to highways, where "ticket" is a bad thing. 

If you renamed I-81 in Virginia the "Coca-Cola Expressway", people are going to call it "I-81".  Road are almost always called by number, or, among native old-timers, by project names (Corridor G, Cross-County Highway, "the beltway", etc).  In the absence of a need to differentiate its just "the interstate", "the turnpike", "the bypass" etc.  If you are in a Harrisonburg, VA, the first words in directions will be "get on 'the' interstate" and go ..." because there is no need to say "81".   

Silly idea.

[Alps]

And never under any circumstance should a road be renamed.

Why do you hate Martin Luther King Jr.? Are you a racist? 

What honestly bothers me about all the streets named "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd" more than anything else is that it's too much of a mouthful and thus unwieldy as a name. I would go with "MLK Blvd" or "King Blvd" as a more practical alternative.

MLK tends to be used as the abbreviation in most places, in terms of common speech or traffic reports.

As a practical matter, people rarely use corporate names or politician names.  In most places "the stadium" is just that "the stadium", perhaps modifed by "the (team name) stadium".  Corporate naming rights are mostly just ego deals for the sponsoring entity, often coming with lots of tickets and such, which would not be applicable to highways, where "ticket" is a bad thing. 

I think stadia are a bad example. Those actually do get referred to by corporate name. In NJ you had Brendan Byrne Area, Continental Airlines Arena, IZOD Center, and people went with it. Citi Field is one a lot of people still call Shea (myself included), but I'm unaware of a part of the country where new stadium names are actually ignored.

[formulanone]

Amway Expressway...

I don't see the problem with an Amway Expressway, it would be one large trunkline that would branch out into other toll roads which would pay back the original road, but be of average quality, and keep branching out into smaller toll roads which then recruit more roads to pay for roads that would have to float bonds to be paid for it, but those bonds would be approved in hotel conference rooms paid for by more bonds. And then we'd call it a QixStar Memorial Highway, and would replace Highway Advisory Radio with ways to improve your sales pitch and VMS boards to tell your status within the highway...but you'd never reach any promised destinations.

[bugo]

Who said anything about not being able to handle it? Sheesh. The Air Force flag to your left isn't just for show. As a former officer, I think I've proven my thick-skin bona fides as much as necessary. I really don't care as much as I guess I sounded like I did.

With all due respect, your military service doesn't impress me.  Yes, some military jobs are very tough and dangerous, but some are no different from regular jobs.  I'm not a military worshiper.  The soldiers in WW2 were admirable, but every war since then has been unnecessary and usually illegal.  And soldiers on both sides of the war commit atrocities (Vietnam, anyone?  Abu Ghraib?)  I'm not trying to insult you, but I don't see the difference between most military jobs and most civilian jobs.

[J N Winkler]

Anyway, how would the naming work in practice? IOW, will there be a minimum length requirement? I can see it now: a different name (and attendant signs) every three or four exits. Some drivers won't know which way is up.

As we all well know, good highway design (including signage) is intended to minimize driver confusion. This seems custom-designed in the third circle of Hell to increase it.

I decided to try to ignore all the party-political garbage that has been spouted and try to get a handle on how much revenue a sale of naming rights might bring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_rights

The biggest actual figure mentioned in the article, which applies to two stadiums, is $20 million a year for 20 years, or $400 million total for each of two facilities (Citi Field and Barclays Stadium).  Speculation has it that naming rights for the Meadowlands Stadium (MetLife Stadium?) will bring in $25 million-$30 million annually.

Considering that $20 million will pay for several miles of pavement reconstruction or a new service interchange, I don't think the sale of naming rights for highways can be dismissed out of hand as a potential revenue source.  But I think the pragmatic objections others have mentioned are important, not just for reasons of safety and public acceptance, but also because they affect the value of the naming rights themselves.

*  Unlike a stadium, the venues where naming rights can be exercised on a highway are severely limited.

*  In contradistinction to athletic facilities, which are venues for paid entertainment, highways are seen more neutrally as conduits.  This perception tends to turn negative in the case of highways which are frequently subject to congestion.  Why would a company pay to risk besmirching its brand by association?  (Another way to look at the distinction is this:  baseball games watched live in a stadium are special events and tend to be remembered as such, while for most people driving down a highway is a quotidian activity.)

*  A sale of naming rights could lead to pressure on a state DOT to undertake improvements (to sweeten the pot for the buyer of naming rights) which would not be programmed if an equal quantity of new revenue came from a traditional source like the fuel tax.

*  The motoring public has a reasonable expectation of continuity and durability in highway names.  This could further depress prices for naming rights of highways, since it requires the buyers to sacrifice flexibilities they enjoy with naming rights in other contexts, such as short-term contracts, the ability to transfer unused tenure in a naming-rights agreement to a third party, etc.

*  In the typical stadium naming-rights scenario, both the buyer of the naming rights and the owner of the stadium are private entities.  In an unrefined highway naming-rights scenario, the buyer would be private while the incumbent would be in the public sector.  In comparison to private companies, public entities cannot do certain things without acting ultra vires or breaking the law, and they also cannot be bound effectively by contract to undertake certain other activities.  This is because there are typically some limitations on the abilities of public agencies (and their officials) to sue and be sued.  Realistically, sale of naming rights would probably have to be delegated to a private-sector shell company in much the same way as the LOGO program, and this company would need some float in order to meet its contract obligations.  This would dilute the potential revenue gains from sale of naming rights.

Proposals such as this are not always serious--often they are floated to demonstrate due diligence in formulating policy and also to make traditionally unattractive options, like increasing the fuel tax, seem more palatable.  I seriously doubt any detailed thought has gone into how a sale of naming rights could be effectuated for highways.

[DeaconG]

Amway Expressway...

I don't see the problem with an Amway Expressway, it would be one large trunkline that would branch out into other toll roads which would pay back the original road, but be of average quality, and keep branching out into smaller toll roads which then recruit more roads to pay for roads that would have to float bonds to be paid for it, but those bonds would be approved in hotel conference rooms paid for by more bonds. And then we'd call it a QixStar Memorial Highway, and would replace Highway Advisory Radio with ways to improve your sales pitch and VMS boards to tell your status within the highway...but you'd never reach any promised destinations.

You are my hero!

[formulanone]

Thanks, DeaconG!

--------------

Could we drop the political bullshitting already? Because I pay people to do it professionally on a daily basis...

[DeaconG]

Yes, I certainly look forward to the day when I can drive on the Carnival Beachline, Bank Of America's Turnpike and Amway Expressway...not!

You call it the Beachline, so why not?

People in Brevard County call it that with a snarl.  It will ALWAYS be the Bee Line to me-with a rocking shield to boot!

[kphoger]

I decided to try to ignore all the party-political garbage that has been spouted and try to get a handle on how much revenue a sale of naming rights might bring.

And YOU are MY hero.

[Alps]

Yes, I certainly look forward to the day when I can drive on the Carnival Beachline, Bank Of America's Turnpike and Amway Expressway...not!

You call it the Beachline, so why not?

People in Brevard County call it that with a snarl.  It will ALWAYS be the Bee Line to me-with a rocking shield to boot!

[Scott5114]

No corporate name has any business on any road unless said road is principally home to said company's headquarters.

Even then, I don't really like it. "Transamerica Conglomerated Enterprise, 1 Transamerica Conglomerate Road" is a really cheesy address. Plus if Transamerica ever vacates that building, it would probably have to be renamed.

There are two streets in northern McClain County, OK branching off of OK-9. One was named Bank Dr. and used to go to a bank, and the other is named Sonic Dr., which goes to a Sonic. The bank that Bank Dr. went to has been torn down, so the powers that be hastily renamed it "Bankers Dr."

[qguy]

With all due respect, your military service doesn't impress me.

Not trying to impress you. Think what you want.

My point was that I'm no shrinking violet. My ears don't burn when I hear insults. What I meant to illustrate by my military service was that I'm no stranger to coarse language. Because the military probably has more coarse language than most sectors of American society. (I've been around.) Not everyone in the military curses a lot, but if they do they typically can curdle milk in the glass, peel paint off walls, etc.

Oddly enough, you don't hear much political insults in the military. Not even ribbing. There are both conservatives and liberals aplenty (admittedly many more conservatives), but when your life depends on the guy (or girl) next to you, you don't care much about their politics (or color, etc.), just whether or not they can get the job done so you can all get home safe.

But thanks for you opinion just the same.

BTW, next time you're tempted to use the phrase "with all due respect," remember that it always reveals that the user really doesn't think much respect is due at all.

Yes, admin, I know I'm *way* far afield from the topic at hand, so I'll speak of it no more. (With all due– uh, nevermind.  )

[Duke87]

Plus if Transamerica ever vacates that building, it would probably have to be renamed.

Only according to this crazy modern philosophy we have where naming rights have been monetized. Chrysler has had no presence in the Chrysler Building for decades and yet nobody has seen a need to change the name. More than can be said about the idiots at Willis Holdings.

[SP Cook]

I think stadia are a bad example. Those actually do get referred to by corporate name. In NJ you had Brendan Byrne Area, Continental Airlines Arena, IZOD Center, and people went with it. Citi Field is one a lot of people still call Shea (myself included), but I'm unaware of a part of the country where new stadium names are actually ignored.

I think NYC metro may be a bad example.  It is big enough to have multiple teams and multiple arenas.  So, you have to call different places something. 

However, even in most major league cities, there is one of each type of venue.  "Going to the game" is sufficient, because there is one team in each sport and one venue.  It can thus be "the stadium" "the park" "the arena/fieldhouse/civic center/etc" and communicate effectivly among locals.  Even concerts, because these will always be at the one and only venue of that form in the metro area.  i.e. "KISS is playing at the arena on the 23rd".

[Alps]

I think stadia are a bad example. Those actually do get referred to by corporate name. In NJ you had Brendan Byrne Area, Continental Airlines Arena, IZOD Center, and people went with it. Citi Field is one a lot of people still call Shea (myself included), but I'm unaware of a part of the country where new stadium names are actually ignored.

I think NYC metro may be a bad example.  It is big enough to have multiple teams and multiple arenas.  So, you have to call different places something. 

However, even in most major league cities, there is one of each type of venue.  "Going to the game" is sufficient, because there is one team in each sport and one venue.  It can thus be "the stadium" "the park" "the arena/fieldhouse/civic center/etc" and communicate effectivly among locals.  Even concerts, because these will always be at the one and only venue of that form in the metro area.  i.e. "KISS is playing at the arena on the 23rd".

I've traveled all over this country. I watch sports play from all different venues, in cities big and small. So actually, while my example is local, my concept is not. Most every place I've been, the venue is called out by the name of its current sponsor.

[Brendan]

Here in Chicago, many lifelong residents I know now refer to Comiskey as "The Cell".  I believe its because the announcers do.  So, along those lines, corporations will have to get the traffic news reporters to start calling highways by the sponsor names.  People here call certain interstates by their names, the Ike, Dan Ryan, Kennedy, tollway, etc. 

[mightyace]

In Nashville, we've had many changes in a short period of time with both main venues due to non-payment of fees by the title sponsor.

I'm pretty sure that the football stadium is referred to by its current "corporate" name of LP Field.  (Now, LP actually stands for Louisiana-Pacific, but it's very appropriate for this town as an abbreviation!)

As for the arena, I'm not sure how many people actually call it by its current name of Bridgestone Arena.  My brother and I simply refer to it as "The Arena" or "Nashville Arena" due to the many changes, but I don't really know whether this is just us or not.

As for highways, I think it's silly especially if it works like it sometimes does in NASCAR.  For example, Verizon and AT&T cannot sponsor cars at the top level sponsored by rival Sprint.

i.e. If we have the "Pizza Hut Freeway," will Papa Johns be blocked from advertising along it?

[txstateends]

Strangely enough, paid naming rights to a highway is one thing Texas has NOT brought up as a source of transportation funding.

[Scott5114]

Plus if Transamerica ever vacates that building, it would probably have to be renamed.

Only according to this crazy modern philosophy we have where naming rights have been monetized. Chrysler has had no presence in the Chrysler Building for decades and yet nobody has seen a need to change the name. More than can be said about the idiots at Willis Holdings.

Well, if I own a company and I buy the building after Transamerica moves out, am I really going to want to include "One Transamerica Drive" on my letterhead? I don't want my customers to associate my company with anything Transamerica has done, I want them to think about what my company has done. Especially if Transamerica is a shitty company, and their name on my letterhead drags my brand down.

Plus on a personal note it would bother me because at that point the street has nothing to do with Transamerica, but then nobody has probably ever seen an asp on Asp Avenue here, so I guess I could just get over that.