TN to allow logo signs in urban areas (with a catch)

[Pink Jazz]

According to this document:
http://www.tennessee.gov/assets/entities/generalservices/cpo/attachments/RFP_40100-04815_QA-_final_for_release.pdf

Tennessee will now be allowing logo signs in urban areas, but with a catch: cities have to opt-in to allow logo signs within an urban area.  When this document was written, only Knoxville has opted into the program.

This is a start, however, lets see if other cities (such as Nashville or Memphis) decide to opt-in.  Here where I live in Arizona, the only portion of the logo sign program that requires city approval is the installation of trailblazer signs on municipal right of way if a business is located on a cross street or is not clearly visible from the main road.

[roadman]

MassDOT requires facilities seeking LOGO signs in both urban and other areas to have applicable licensing from the city or town, and also requires local approval of any trailblazer signs that are not on state highway, before an application for LOGO signs can be approved.

Seems to me that Tennesee's new program is nothing more than another example of a pointless bureaucratic exercise.

[Pink Jazz]

IMO I think it would be more effective to allow cities to opt-out of the program, instead of requiring them to opt-in to have logo signs installed.  That way logo signs can be installed in as many urban areas as possible except if a city decides to opt-out.

[hbelkins]

Since the interstates are state-maintained roads, I don't think the cities should have any say whatsoever in whether or not logo signs are installed.

[vdeane]

In addition to the signs on the highway and ramp, signs on the local roads would also be needed, at least for any business that wasn't directly accessible from the road the exit is for or isn't visible from that road.

[hbelkins]

In addition to the signs on the highway and ramp, signs on the local roads would also be needed, at least for any business that wasn't directly accessible from the road the exit is for or isn't visible from that road.

It's rare that I see this type of sign away from the ramp.

[Pink Jazz]

In addition to the signs on the highway and ramp, signs on the local roads would also be needed, at least for any business that wasn't directly accessible from the road the exit is for or isn't visible from that road.

It's rare that I see this type of sign away from the ramp.

Those are known as trailblazer signs, and yes they do require local approval since they have to be placed on local right of way. There are a few around the Phoenix area at a few exits. So far, the cities of Phoenix, Avondale, and Glendale have approved them, while the only city that I know that rejected them is Scottsdale. Not sure about Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, or Peoria, althogh none have been installed in those cities do far.

[cpzilliacus]

Since the interstates are state-maintained roads, I don't think the cities should have any say whatsoever in whether or not logo signs are installed.

Strongly agreed.  And even in some "urban"areas, it can be a considerable distance between interchanges that have services nearby.  I am specifically thinking of I-495 (the Capital Beltway) between Exit 46 (Va. 123) in McLean and Exit 31 (Md. 97) in Silver Spring.

That's about 14 miles and 7 interchanges that do not have services close by them (some have services a mile or two away, but is potentially confusing for people that are not familiar with the area).

[mrsman]

Since the interstates are state-maintained roads, I don't think the cities should have any say whatsoever in whether or not logo signs are installed.

Strongly agreed.  And even in some "urban"areas, it can be a considerable distance between interchanges that have services nearby.  I am specifically thinking of I-495 (the Capital Beltway) between Exit 46 (Va. 123) in McLean and Exit 31 (Md. 97) in Silver Spring.

That's about 14 miles and 7 interchanges that do not have services close by them (some have services a mile or two away, but is potentially confusing for people that are not familiar with the area).

Completely agree.  Especially with regard to gas.  You are running low and you need gas now.  You don't know the area, where will you go?  With the logo signs being consistent in urban, suburban, and rural areas - you'd know that you shouldn't waste your time finiding a gas station at an exit without a logo sign.

And in areas with expensive real estate, there are fewer and fewer gas stations.

Completely agrr

[Rothman]

This thread is reminding me of the case we had up here a couple of years ago, where businesses in Arbor Hill, a depressed neighborhood in Albany, complained that the service signage (not logo signage, just the silhouette service signage) was discriminatory since it directed traffic to the north of I-90 into the much more affluent hamlet of Loudonville.  In response, NYSDOT did install additional arrows on the signage to show that there were gas and restaurants in both directions at I-90 and US 9.

So, although it's easy to say that the state should do this and the city should do that, it may not be totally that clear cut when it comes to advertising.

[Pink Jazz]

The problem with TN's program is that cities in urban areas have to opt-in.  So far only Knoxville has opted in, and it remains unknown whether Nashville and Memphis plan to opt-in as well.  Ideally cities should not have a say in whether state-maintained freeways get logo signs.  If TDOT/Lawsigns really feels that cities should have a say, it should be opt-out instead of opt-in at a minimum, since an opt-out program would probably lead to greater acceptance by the cities.  The opt-in program just doesn't seem like it would generate enough interest by the urban cities.

[freebrickproductions]

I know I saw logo-signage in the Chattanooga, TN area when I went up there on a class trip a few months back.

[vdeane]

Keep in mind that with logo signs, it's not just the signs on the freeway.  These have to be posted too: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3290191,-73.6741711,3a,37.2y,53.87h,87.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYn4GPWblIvl1P2T-H6aNRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

While this example is state maintained (a rare suburban logo sign, likely predating the Glens Falls urban area boundary), routes in cities often aren't no matter what they're signed as.  NYSDOT, for example, maintains very few surface streets within city lines.  And many cities might not want them in any case; they want people to stop in downtown and walk around, not hop off the interstate, eat at some chain, and then hop back on.

[Pink Jazz]

Keep in mind that with logo signs, it's not just the signs on the freeway.  These have to be posted too: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3290191,-73.6741711,3a,37.2y,53.87h,87.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYn4GPWblIvl1P2T-H6aNRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

While this example is state maintained (a rare suburban logo sign, likely predating the Glens Falls urban area boundary), routes in cities often aren't no matter what they're signed as.  NYSDOT, for example, maintains very few surface streets within city lines.  And many cities might not want them in any case; they want people to stop in downtown and walk around, not hop off the interstate, eat at some chain, and then hop back on.

As I already stated, those are trailblazer logo signs, which do require local approval.  Typically such signs are used if a business is either located on a cross street or if they are not clearly visible from the main road off the freeway.  However, I don't see why cities should have a say whether or not logo signs get installed on state-maintained roads.

Note that in 2006 there was a bill in Virginia to allow cities or towns to opt-out of the logo and/or TODS programs, but that bill failed.  Virginia I think was one of the earlier states to allow logo signs in urban areas, I think since 2003.

[vdeane]

Well, if the logo sign is on the freeway, the trailbalzer signs are REQUIRED unless the business is located on the road near the interchange.  Given that cities don't have services clustered around interchanges the same way suburban and rural areas do, that means everywhere.

[Pink Jazz]

Well, if the logo sign is on the freeway, the trailbalzer signs are REQUIRED unless the business is located on the road near the interchange.  Given that cities don't have services clustered around interchanges the same way suburban and rural areas do, that means everywhere.

Note that even in states that do allow logo signs in urban areas, you typically will not see them near downtown areas due to lack of available space between interchanges, because the MUTCD still requires that there is sufficient space between exits in order to not conflict with other more critical signs.  Here in the Phoenix area, this is why they are not installed on any exit on I-10 from 35th Avenue to Baseline Road.  Similarly, logo signs are not installed in the vicinity of Downtown Atlanta in Georgia even though they are installed in much of the rest of the Atlanta area.

[Pink Jazz]

FYI, as of January 1, 2016, TDOT has switched its logo sign vendor from Lawsigns to Tennessee Logos, Inc. (a subsidiary of Interstate Logos, a Lamar Advertising company).  Perhaps TDOT felt that Tennesee Logos is more capable of expanding their logo sign program into urban areas.

I'm still a bit skeptical about the opt-in requirement for the installation of logo signs in the urban areas.  While Knoxville has opted into the program, it remains to be seen whether or not Nashville and/or Memphis will do so as well.  The opt-in requirement just seems like it won't generate much interest by the cities.