I'm just curious. Do you think that having logo signs in urban areas (like the suburbs of San Diego etc.) would be a good idea for the state of California? One of the things I have noticed when living here is that there isn't really a whole lot of logo signs outside of the rural areas, and even then, I'm not sure why they have this as part of their regulations...
"The department shall not approve the placement of any sign within any urban area designated by the United States Bureau of the Census as having a population of 5,000 or more." (from the Streets and Highways Code, Division 1, Article 3, Section 101.7 Information Signs). Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/logo/regulations.htm
I'm just thinking that it would be good for the tourist who drives through the state of California, or people that want to peruse through the logo signs to find a specific service they want. Also, not to mention that neighboring states like Arizona and Nevada already have logo signs in their urban areas.
I like the logo signs. The more info the merrier!
Rick
I would imagine that there's some advantage to forcing people to exit a freeway to find a service. It's one of those things that makes sense on paper, but in practice, it's better to let people wander. Washington uses logo signs in urban areas, and while they're nice to have, frankly I'd rather have people exit the freeway and explore.
Yes, totally. It may be just as hard to find a good gas station in the city as it is in rural areas.
GAS FOOD LODGING, but I think that you can only include places that have their own parking that is either free or minimal cost. I would also include GROCERY and PHARMACY as important to the traveling public. Establishments should be within 1 mile of an exit to be listed on the logo sign.
Graphical signage depicting fuel (gas and diesel), food, and lodging would be better and more concise, IMHO.
Yes, as a California resident who has been frustrated in trying to find specific services in semi-urban settings, I would be in favor of adding logo signage nearly everywhere except where message overloading would be a problem
There was another recent thread on logo signing in urban areas, and the comments I made there (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13963.msg2020191#msg2020191) would also apply to California–perhaps more so because of the sprawling nature of many of the state's "urban" areas.
Quote from: briantroutman on May 13, 2015, 03:27:25 PM
Yes, as a California resident who has been frustrated in trying to find specific services in semi-urban settings, I would be in favor of adding logo signage nearly everywhere except where message overloading would be a problem
-snip-
I definitely agree. I frequently travel on I-5 and to a lesser extent, I-15 in North County and there's ample space to put logo signs for the exits, as there's a lot of restaurants, hotels and food along those routes.
Also, ample space to put them along US 101 in Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, Ventura and Santa Barbara.
Yes, California (along with all other states with logo signing programs) should allow the installation of logo signs in urban areas. California is stuck in the 1980s/1990s by restricting logo signs to rural areas.
Note that California has its own state MUTCD, so perhaps the California MUTCD may need to be amended if it still restricts logo signs to rural areas only (which was lifted in the 2000 edition of the national MUTCD as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained).
I would like to re-affirm Riiga's point of view from the previous thread on logo signs in urban areas. Paraphrasing: The busiest roads are the one's with the services. Telling out-of-state drivers to use these roads, in addition to the locals, will only serve to impact traffic negatively, and if there's one state that doesn't need any additional traffic impacts, it's California.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 13, 2015, 08:19:16 PM
Yes, California (along with all other states with logo signing programs) should allow the installation of logo signs in urban areas. California is stuck in the 1980s/1990s by restricting logo signs to rural areas.
Note that California has its own state MUTCD, so perhaps the California MUTCD may need to be amended if it still restricts logo signs to rural areas only (which was lifted in the 2000 edition of the national MUTCD as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained).
Language restricting logo signage to rural areas remains in the latest edition of the California MUTCD in Section 2J.01. It appears that the primary reason for the restriction is due to Section 101.7 in the California Streets and Highways Code which prohibits the installation of logo signage in "an urban area designated by the United States Bureau of the Census as having a population of 5,000 or more".
There's not a whole lot Caltrans can do unless a change is made to this code which, I would assume, would require action from the state legislature.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 14, 2015, 01:57:48 PM
There's not a whole lot Caltrans can do unless a change is made to this code which, I would assume, would require action from the state legislature.
Which I think would be tough to pass, because California is a highly liberal state. I hate to get political, but if you have noticed in another thread that I posted about logo signs, most of the states that permit the installation of logo signs in urban areas are either red states or swing states. I'm not sure if it has to do with conservative vs. liberal politics, however, it does seem to be an interesting coincidence.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2015, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 14, 2015, 01:57:48 PM
There's not a whole lot Caltrans can do unless a change is made to this code which, I would assume, would require action from the state legislature.
Which I think would be tough to pass, because California is a highly liberal state. I hate to get political, but if you have noticed in another thread that I posted about logo signs, most of the states that permit the installation of logo signs in urban areas are either red states or swing states. I'm not sure if it has to do with conservative vs. liberal politics, however, it does seem to be an interesting coincidence.
Regardless of your view on politics, it's an interesting point. I'd imagine that it's not always true (Washington state politics have leaned left recently, but we have logo signs --though they were implemented under a conservative government).
Oregon likewise leans left but has logo signs.
Quote from: Bickendan on May 14, 2015, 04:20:36 PM
Oregon likewise leans left but has logo signs.
In urban areas, or only in rural areas? Washington I know has them at least in Seattle's near suburbs.
If there is any political correlation, I would attribute it to the general tendency for people on the left to be city dwellers and support walkable and transit-oriented development vs. the right-wing's more suburban and rural constituency and their preference to private homes, private automobiles, and an auto-oriented lifestyle.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 14, 2015, 04:20:36 PM
Oregon likewise leans left but has logo signs.
In urban areas, or only in rural areas? Washington I know has them at least in Seattle's near suburbs.
Both.
Louisiana has logo signs in urban areas, but they tend to disappear in the city center.
How does CA handle the exit numbers on logo signs? Here the the sign will have the exit number listed in center bottom of the sign. I wished we used the exit tab on top type.
Quote from: pctech on June 08, 2015, 03:13:36 PM
Louisiana has logo signs in urban areas, but they tend to disappear in the city center.
How does CA handle the exit numbers on logo signs? Here the the sign will have the exit number listed in center bottom of the sign. I wished we used the exit tab on top type.
Its fairly typical for dense downtown areas not to have logo signs even if other urban freeways have them, since the available sign spacing to install them is often very limited, thus increasing costs of engineering studies if they are really desired. For example, here in the Phoenix area they are not currently installed on any exit on I-10 from 35th Avenue to Baseline Road, and as far as I know there are currently no plans to install them there (although I think it is definitely possible to install logo signs at the Baseline exit at least in the westbound direction, and I am pretty sure it would draw a lot of demand due to Arizona Mills being at that exit).
Typically what I have seen on highways with unnumbered exits is that logo signs would say X NEXT RIGHT (where "X" is the service type).
Quote from: pctech on June 08, 2015, 03:13:36 PM
Louisiana has logo signs in urban areas, but they tend to disappear in the city center.
How does CA handle the exit numbers on logo signs? Here the the sign will have the exit number listed in center bottom of the sign. I wished we used the exit tab on top type.
California uses signs without tabs. Many of the logo signs I've seen in the rural areas (especially I-80 through the Sierra) predate exit number installation–IIRC, they just say "Food - Next Right" on the top center of the panel.
Sometimes they will combine services on one sign. These usually happen after installation, so they end up looking cobbled together in various ways (text layout, 'blue-out', etc.).
Here's a typical older California specific service sign with button copy legend and "NEXT RIGHT" as opposed to an exit number (left)–and a newer all-reflective sign with exit number (right).
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/498/18651617845_72666878af_o.png)
Quote from: roadfro on June 09, 2015, 04:45:26 PM
Quote from: pctech on June 08, 2015, 03:13:36 PM
Louisiana has logo signs in urban areas, but they tend to disappear in the city center.
How does CA handle the exit numbers on logo signs? Here the the sign will have the exit number listed in center bottom of the sign. I wished we used the exit tab on top type.
California uses signs without tabs. Many of the logo signs I've seen in the rural areas (especially I-80 through the Sierra) predate exit number installation–IIRC, they just say "Food - Next Right" on the top center of the panel.
Sometimes they will combine services on one sign. These usually happen after installation, so they end up looking cobbled together in various ways (text layout, 'blue-out', etc.).
Generally most states only include exit tabs on logo signs only if they contain more than one service type on them, otherwise the exit number will typically be on the body of the sign. However, here in Arizona ever since the urban logo sign began, they have been including exit tabs on all new installations (which are larger than in most states), even on signs with only one service type. I presume the reason is to save money should a sign be modified in the future with additional service types, thus no need to fabricate an exit tab in the future. This is especially useful in the urban program where you can only fit one or two signs per direction for each interchange, since one year you may have only food services on a sign but the next year a gas or lodging business may want a space on that same sign.
Washington has a 3 mile limit for service signs. Does California have a similar restriction?
I don't oppose logo signs along freeways in CA, it helps drivers know and decide where to go for gas, lodging and food choices. In urban areas, drivers are more likely to spot the nearest gas station, motel or hotel, and fast food or restaurant by looking at signs along the roads. This is different for drivers in rural areas unable to find where's the nearest place for a stop.
I was on a trip to San Diego and Los Angeles on Memorial Day weekend, and on my way back from Los Angeles, I noticed that Blythe had logo signs even though its population is above Caltrans' limit of 5000. I wonder if Blythe was granted a special exception to the rule.
Ever since I moved out to California the lack of logo signs struck me as odd and annoying. My current options are either to use GPS (which can be problematic when I'm driving solo) or just hang around in the right lane and look for the retailers' own freeway-visible signage.
The last time I drove in Georgia, there were logo signs well into the Atlanta city limits, and as an out-of-towner I definitely appreciated them!
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 09, 2018, 10:37:31 AM
I was on a trip to San Diego and Los Angeles on Memorial Day weekend, and on my way back from Los Angeles, I noticed that Blythe had logo signs even though its population is above Caltrans' limit of 5000. I wonder if Blythe was granted a special exception to the rule.
I believe those have been in place for quite some time. It probably has a lot to do with the long stretch of desert west to reach anything viable in Coachella. I want to say that I-40 has them in Needles as well.
Quote from: djsekani on June 16, 2018, 05:29:13 PM
Ever since I moved out to California the lack of logo signs struck me as odd and annoying. My current options are either to use GPS (which can be problematic when I'm driving solo) or just hang around in the right lane and look for the retailers' own freeway-visible signage.
It seems to be a district-by-district thing.
The most annoying situation is places like Santa Barbara, where there not only is no logo signage, but the city restricts "freeway-visible" business signage. A sensible policy on logo signage (not what California has now) would allow more logo signs in places with less "freeway-visible" business signs, while dispensing with logo signs in places full of billboards and overhead signs (personally, I'd rather have the less intrusive logo signs).