I-93 Logo signs

[roadman]

While driving up to Derry NH earlier, I noticed that the attractions signs at Exits 2 and 3 have been modified to include other services.  The sign at exit 2 now has Food and Lodging Logos, and the sign at exit 3 now has gas logos.  Are these signs one-offs to satisfy a Warrant 12 request, or has NHDOT revised their policy to now allow Logo signs for all services (not just Attractions) on freeway mainlines?

[deathtopumpkins]

2016 Senate Bill 519 amended the law to allow all service signs, and also directed NHDOT to outsource management of the service sign program to an outside contractor. In 2019 they outsourced it to Interstate Logos, LLC (big surprise).

They're still not widespread, but food and gas logo signs have been appearing randomly around the state since then. Apparently they're charging $1800/year for them.

[roadman]

2016 Senate Bill 519 amended the law to allow all service signs, and also directed NHDOT to outsource management of the service sign program to an outside contractor. In 2019 they outsourced it to Interstate Logos, LLC (big surprise).

They're still not widespread, but food and gas logo signs have been appearing randomly around the state since then. Apparently they're charging $1800/year for them.

Thanks for the update.  Wonder what percentage of that $1,800 annual fee the state actually gets?

[deathtopumpkins]

Interstate Logos pays the state annually the larger of 5% of fee revenue or $50,000.

[roadman]

Interesting.  In Massachusetts, which is still a state administered LOGO program, a business pays MassDOT an annual fee of $1,200 per interchange where they are displayed on signs, except that the initial applicant - the one who installed the principal signs - can have their fee waived until they've recouped their costs (i.e., if an installation costs $12,000, the $1,200 fee is waived for ten years).

A four panel LOGO sign generates $3,600 in fees per year, and a six panel LOGO sign generates $6,000 in fees per year.  As there are multiple signs for different services at most interchanges, and given the number of interchanges in Massachusetts that have services signing, that adds up pretty quickly.

[Mergingtraffic]

So NH ever had logo signs on interstate mainlines?  If true, I thought CT was archaic with their logo sign program.

Logo signs in CT aren't state maintained hence the button copy still up from the early 1990s when it first started.  The ATTRACTIONS signs are state maintained bc tourism dollars are attached to it. 

Also restrictions on placement of ATTRACTION signs are more lenient as they can be placed in the middle of interchanges or for interchanges that are less tan a mile apart unlike the other services such as GAS FOOD LODGING and CAMPING. 

[deathtopumpkins]

So NH ever had logo signs on interstate mainlines?  If true, I thought CT was archaic with their logo sign program.

The state has had attractions signs for a while now, but the only service signs were the generic symbols, as seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/vPjsui7WdqgHWero6

I think this is a huge step forward, and I'm looking forward to more signs appearing.

[roadman]

So NH ever had logo signs on interstate mainlines?  If true, I thought CT was archaic with their logo sign program.

The state has had attractions signs for a while now, but the only service signs were the generic symbols, as seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/vPjsui7WdqgHWero6

I think this is a huge step forward, and I'm looking forward to more signs appearing.

Now if only someone would tell the state that urgent care facilities are NOT tourist attractions.

[shadyjay]

Now if only someone would tell the state that urgent care facilities are NOT tourist attractions.

Haha... indeed.  There's one up in Littleton on I-93.  Seems very odd to see that listed as an attraction.

Other than that, I for one am a big fan of the ATTRACTION logo signs.  CT fairly recently started using them as well.  I like how it consolidates many signs into just one.  Now I'm not a huge fan of the GAS, FOOD, LODGING logo signs, especially if they only have 1 logo listed.  In areas where there are multiple options for each service, then I guess they're good.

Maine Turnpike has been using multi-logo signs for several years.  They allow multiple "services" on each sign, so there's no wasted space.  For example, one sign may list CAMPING/LODGING logos.  Or another may list LODGING/ATTRACTIONS.  I don't believe food and fuel logo signs are allowed on the Maine Turnpike. 

[roadman]

The 'multiple services' LOGO signs are permitted per the MUTCD.  Most states do not use them unless there is insufficient room to place multiple signs, or in certain locations where it is unlikely there will be more than two eligible facilities for a given service.