For those who are interested, I decided to create a thread that tracks the installation of logo signs on Phoenix area freeways. I know you can view them on grandcanyonstatelogosigns.com, however, the map isn't always up to date; I have seen new signs before the map has been updated.
Here is what has been installed so far:
October 2013
- Loop 101 and Olive Avenue
November 2013
- I-17 and Bell Road
- I-17 and Union Hills Drive
December 2013
- I-17 and Dunlap Avenue
- I-17 and Peoria Avenue
- I-17 and Cactus Road (northbound only)
- I-17 and Thunderbird Road
- I-17 and Greenway Road
- I-10 and 75th Avenue
- I-10 and Elliot Road
- I-10 and Warner Road
- I-10 and Ray Road
- Loop 101 and Indian School Road
- Loop 101 and Peoria Avenue
- Loop 101 and Bell Road
May 2014
- I-17 and Pinnacle Peak Road
- I-17 and Happy Valley Road
- Loop 101 and 67th Avenue
- Loop 101 and 59th Avenue
- Loop 101 and Tatum Boulevard
June 2014
- I-17 and Deer Valley Drive (southbound only)
- I-10 and 67th Avenue
- I-10 and 43rd Avenue
- I-10 and Chandler Boulevard
- Loop 101 and Thomas Road (southbound only)
- Loop 101 and 7th Street
- Loop 101 and Hayden Road
- Loop 101 and Broadway Road
July 2014
- I-10 and 83rd Avenue
- I-10 and 51st Avenue
- Loop 101 and McDowell Road (southbound only)
- Loop 101 and Northern Avenue
- Loop 101 and Thunderbird Road
- Loop 101 and Cave Creek Road
- Loop 101 and Scottsdale Road (eastbound only)
- Loop 101 and Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard
- Loop 101 and Rio Salado Parkway/University Drive
- Loop 101 and Southern Avenue/Baseline Road
At this rate, it looks like I-10 and Loop 101 should be complete by the end of the summer. Note that I-10 from 35th Avenue to the US 60 Superstition Freeway, as well as I-17 south of Dunlap will not be getting logo signs due to lack of sign spacing. Also, Loop 101 from Shea Boulevard to Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway won't be getting logo signs until 2016 due to a widening project.
BTW, logo sign installation on Loop 202 and SR 51 should begin in October and continue through early/mid-2015. The US 60 Superstition Freeway is planned for the second half of 2015. Finally, Loop 303 is planned for 2018; I presume ADOT will focus on logo sign installation in the Tucson area before installing them on Loop 303.
Monthly Update:
August 2014
- Loop 101 and Elliot Road
- Loop 101 and Ray Road
- Loop 101 and Chandler Boulevard
These signs I saw in person, but the GCSLS website hasn't been updated with them yet. There are probably a few others that have been installed last month in other places that I did not see.
Quote from: McConaughey on September 29, 2014, 09:24:08 PM
These are so ridiculous and unnecessary in urban areas.
Strongly disagree. They are just as helpful in urban areas as they are in rural areas, since people who are undecided on a specific restaurant/gas station/hotel can more easily know in advance before getting off at an exit.
Furthermore, the state revenue generation potential in urban areas is far greater than in rural areas since there will be more businesses competing to get space on the signs, and often will command a premium over a sign in a rural area. In Arizona's case, at exits where the demand exceeds the available sign space, whoever gets to have a space on one of the signs is decided with a competitive bidding process.
In addition, another advantage to logo signs is that it has the potential of actually IMPROVING (not reducing) highway safety by reducing the temptation of drivers to lookup nearby services on their smartphones while driving at highway speeds. This is especially important in urban areas.
Quote from: McConaughey on September 29, 2014, 09:24:08 PM
These are so ridiculous and unnecessary in urban areas.
Strongly agree.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 30, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: McConaughey on September 29, 2014, 09:24:08 PM
These are so ridiculous and unnecessary in urban areas.
Strongly agree.
For what reasons? You need to back up your reasoning. I have perfectly valid and undisputable reasons why they are useful and important in urban areas. And apparently, ADOT disagrees with you.
Monthly Update:
September 2014
- Loop 101 and Camelback Road (added to GCSLS website 10/22/14)
- Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue
- Loop 101 and Union Hills Drive (northbound only, added to GCSLS website 10/22/14)
- Loop 101 and 51st Avenue (added to GCSLS website 10/22/14)
- Loop 101 and 19th Avenue (westbound only, added to GCSLS website 10/22/14)
- Loop 101 and 7th Avenue (westbound only, added to GCSLS website 10/22/14)
- I-10 and Avondale Boulevard (spotted 10/18/14)
- I-10 and 99th Avenue (eastbound only, spotted 10/18/14)
There could be some others that I don't know about yet.
This is really dumb. I hated them in Las Vegas, I hated them in Reno and I hate them in Atlanta. I was just in Phoenix and was disappointed to see them. Hopefully ADOT will gain some sense and take them down.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 30, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: McConaughey on September 29, 2014, 09:24:08 PM
These are so ridiculous and unnecessary in urban areas.
Strongly agree.
Disagree. We have them along I-295 in the Camden/Philly area. Very helpful, because some exits have no services at all, while others may dump you in undesirable parts of town. Need gas? Pick an exit that's signed for gas. I'd rather see these at all exits.
I think certain businesses would like this as a competitive advantage. For now, I'm OK with the signs.
Quote from: 404inthe404 on October 08, 2014, 10:48:48 PM
This is really dumb. I hated them in Las Vegas, I hated them in Reno and I hate them in Atlanta. I was just in Phoenix and was disappointed to see them. Hopefully ADOT will gain some sense and take them down.
There goes all the potential revenue. You hate them for no reason, which is bad. IMO it should be illegal to be opposed to them.
Quote from: Alps on October 08, 2014, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 30, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: McConaughey on September 29, 2014, 09:24:08 PM
These are so ridiculous and unnecessary in urban areas.
Strongly agree.
Disagree. We have them along I-295 in the Camden/Philly area. Very helpful, because some exits have no services at all, while others may dump you in undesirable parts of town. Need gas? Pick an exit that's signed for gas. I'd rather see these at all exits.
I'm not so sure we need logo signs at all exits, but at least the symbol signage for gas (with the D for diesel), food, lodging, and hospitals would be most useful.
I'd also like to see a change in the format of the logo signage. Right now, it's all text at the top for the service, i.e. GAS - EXIT 134. I think that should be moved to the left with the gas symbol (and D for diesel if applicable) followed by "EXIT" and then the exit number below i.e. "134", and the logos to the right of the symbol and exit number separated by a line.
{GAS} | {logo} {logo}
EXIT | {logo} {logo}
134 | {logo} {logo}
Quote from: Brandon on October 09, 2014, 10:01:08 AM
I'd also like to see a change in the format of the logo signage. Right now, it's all text at the top for the service, i.e. GAS - EXIT 134. I think that should be moved to the left with the gas symbol (and D for diesel if applicable) followed by "EXIT" and then the exit number below i.e. "134", and the logos to the right of the symbol and exit number separated by a line.
{GAS} | {logo} {logo}
EXIT | {logo} {logo}
134 | {logo} {logo}
I think that layout would require more sign panel area than the current design.
Quote from: Brandon on October 09, 2014, 10:01:08 AM
I'd also like to see a change in the format of the logo signage. Right now, it's all text at the top for the service, i.e. GAS - EXIT 134. I think that should be moved to the left with the gas symbol (and D for diesel if applicable) followed by "EXIT" and then the exit number below i.e. "134", and the logos to the right of the symbol and exit number separated by a line.
{GAS} | {logo} {logo}
EXIT | {logo} {logo}
134 | {logo} {logo}
So something like:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FBrandonGasConcept_zps8b659c0c.png&hash=07d04b7c231fb25760f29d0a92904a42a4a1f89b)
(Couldn't be arsed to actually go and find images to put in the spaces, sorry)
Here in Arizona, most of the urban logo signs have the exit number in a tab, which is larger than most of those in the rural areas which either use a smaller tab or have the exit number in the main body of the sign. Also, here in Arizona you will only find horizontal layout 6-panel logo signs here in Arizona in the urban areas; all rural 6-panel logo signs are in a vertical layout.
QuoteIMO it should be illegal to be opposed to them.
Holy crap, dude. It's the logo sign Stasi.
Quote from: corco on October 10, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
QuoteIMO it should be illegal to be opposed to them.
Holy crap, dude. It's the logo sign Stasi.
The problem is that there is absolutely no valid reason to be opposed to them; they are useful to motorists and a source of revenue for the state that will usually pay itself off. Would you prefer huge expensive billboards instead?
Yeah, I understand the argument for them.
If disliking them were to be illegal, what would you suggest the punishment to be? Would this be an infraction, misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony? Would a person serve jail time? Would there be a cash fine? If so, what would it be? Are you advocating for the death penalty?
Quote from: corco on October 10, 2014, 09:11:07 PM
Yeah, I understand the argument for them.
If disliking them were to be illegal, what would you suggest the punishment to be? Would this be an infraction, misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony? Would a person serve jail time? Would there be a cash fine? If so, what would it be? Are you advocating for the death penalty?
Not sure about that. However, I would wish state transportation authorities would better educate the public on their benefits to both the state and motorists who drive on their highways. In fact, the argument against Googling or Yelping while driving at highway speeds would be a selling point for these signs and could reduce unnecessary opposition.
Also IMO all states who still restrict their logo sign programs to rural areas should wake up and realize that these signs are just as useful in urban areas and can generate more revenue in urban areas.
Signs should not be an extortionate revenue generator.
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2014, 10:40:19 PM
Signs should not be an extortionate revenue generator.
Why not. It costs taxpayers little to nothing, and can pay for highway improvements. Would you prefer higher fuel taxes instead?
Yes, I would. Signs should reflect what's actually at the exit in full, not only those businesses who choose to pay.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 10, 2014, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2014, 10:40:19 PM
Signs should not be an extortionate revenue generator.
Why not. It costs taxpayers little to nothing, and can pay for highway improvements. Would you prefer higher fuel taxes instead?
The way to make this type of plan worthwhile in an urban area is to also implement a sign code to reduce the number of really tall freeway-type signs and billboards, effectively beautifying the area, reducing sign clutter, and increasing safety. If this type of program doesn't come with a sign code, it basically just increases the clutter and renders the whole program worthless.
The flip side to that is that by implementing a sign code that restricts non-logo sign advertisement, you force private industry to buy space on a logo sign from the government, which could be seen as extortion.
That being said, the space on a logo sign is probably cheaper than erecting a 60' tall McDonald's sign. The advantage to that is that it helps to equalize competition since everybody gets equal opportunity to advertise. The flip side to THAT is that it interferes with the free market. (Ma and Pa's Restaurant, which couldn't afford to put up a 60' tall freeway sign, might be able to buy space on a logo sign. McDonald's, which might want to put up a 60' tall freeway sign to run Ma and Pa out of business would have to settle for a logo sign).
Probably the amount of money available to pay for highway improvements would be negligible if you kept the costs reasonable (which you would have to do in order to make it a palatable and desirable alternative to conventional advertising that is not considered to be extortion), since there would ostensibly be a couple guys in cubicles + maintenance workers running an application process for those signs, processing those permits, getting the signs made, maintaining the signs, etc. While government may profit slightly off such a program, it's more just an expansion of government. The way governments and user fees work, you can't really charge an unreasonably high fee and then roll that money to a general improvements fund that doesn't help sustain the program- you have to justify the fee. You can reasonably roll over a minimal amount of money, but once we get into millions of dollars that becomes a bit of an eyebrow-raiser.
The only way I can think of that you could use these types of user fees to generate monies for highway improvements is if you made business owners that got logo signs pay an impact fee to fund improvements to offset the traffic generated on the ramps from the presence of the logo sign, but then you'd have to commission traffic studies to demonstrate those impacts and the whole thing would get really expensive and ridiculous quickly in order to not be a legal nightmare. Even with all that, I'm still not sure if it would be legal to do such a thing, and it certainly wouldn't be profitable for the business to buy a logo sign at that point.
Even then, if you were to attempt to make the fees high enough to fund highway improvements, and they were found to be arbitrary, there'd be an equity issue like what SPUI notes above- is the fee reasonable enough that any business can afford it, or do only national chains have the money lying around to front those costs? Such a claim could be actionable if the fees weren't justifiably low.
So, yeah, while I would support such a program from a beautification perspective, there's certain significant property rights/government scope arguments that could be made against such a program. I strongly dislike the idea to attempt to raise revenue for general highway improvements, because I don't think that's legally defensible. Whether or not to implement would have to be based on the views of the community at large.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 10, 2014, 07:31:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 09, 2014, 10:01:08 AM
I'd also like to see a change in the format of the logo signage. Right now, it's all text at the top for the service, i.e. GAS - EXIT 134. I think that should be moved to the left with the gas symbol (and D for diesel if applicable) followed by "EXIT" and then the exit number below i.e. "134", and the logos to the right of the symbol and exit number separated by a line.
{GAS} | {logo} {logo}
EXIT | {logo} {logo}
134 | {logo} {logo}
So something like:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FBrandonGasConcept_zps8b659c0c.png&hash=07d04b7c231fb25760f29d0a92904a42a4a1f89b)
(Couldn't be arsed to actually go and find images to put in the spaces, sorry)
Yeah, but just a bit smaller on the symbol and text. IMHO, we should try to embrace as many symbol signs as we can instead of text. This is the best of both worlds, the symbol and the logos.
^^ Without looking up the exact specs, the proposed design mockup seems like the logo sign panels are too small in relation to the symbol and exit text--if that's the case, the sign would need to be both taller and wider to accommodate. It might be easier to put those on a top line and revert the panels to a typical horizontal layout.
How 'bout this? I just moved the thing onto the overhead gantry. Is this even allowed?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSZVRayf.png&hash=d323adae9b271d0b81ef1cb199120e4b2733b0ed)
I believe that services logo signs should be installed even in urban areas. Any business within a certain radius of the exit (2 miles rural, 1 mile urban) should be allowed to advertise on the sign if they are gas, food, or lodging. These are really helpful and it's nice that Phoenix is incorporating this in an urban area.
Quote from: mrsman on October 13, 2014, 08:31:59 AM
I believe that services logo signs should be installed even in urban areas. Any business within a certain radius of the exit (2 miles rural, 1 mile urban) should be allowed to advertise on the sign if they are gas, food, or lodging. These are really helpful and it's nice that Phoenix is incorporating this in an urban area.
Thank you for understanding their benefits in urban areas. In addition, attractions, camping, and 24-hour pharmacies should also be allowed to advertise as long as there is adequate spacing between exits (although the chances of there being campgrounds in urban areas are generally pretty slim).
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 10, 2014, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2014, 10:40:19 PM
Signs should not be an extortionate revenue generator.
Why not. It costs taxpayers little to nothing, and can pay for highway improvements. Would you prefer higher fuel taxes instead?
If you're going to counter this, you may at least want to say that you're not defending extortion, which is what this response implies.
I don't have strong opinions on them, but the level of repudiation of dissent here is a little ridiculous.
Are they priced fairly so that mom-and-pop places have as much chance to take part in the state-subsidized advertising as Macaroni Grill does?
I know someone who runs the only available food service at a rural exit, but traffic dries up at night, making it uneconomical for them to stay open past the evening. Therefore, they can't get on the logo sign, whose rules require being open until 9 or so. So nobody wins.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 13, 2014, 03:32:51 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 10, 2014, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2014, 10:40:19 PM
Signs should not be an extortionate revenue generator.
Why not. It costs taxpayers little to nothing, and can pay for highway improvements. Would you prefer higher fuel taxes instead?
If you're going to counter this, you may at least want to say that you're not defending extortion, which is what this response implies.
I don't have strong opinions on them, but the level of repudiation of dissent here is a little ridiculous.
Are they priced fairly so that mom-and-pop places have as much chance to take part in the state-subsidized advertising as Macaroni Grill does?
I know someone who runs the only available food service at a rural exit, but traffic dries up at night, making it uneconomical for them to stay open past the evening. Therefore, they can't get on the logo sign, whose rules require being open until 9 or so. So nobody wins.
I see plenty of local restaurants on logo signs, not just national chain restaurants.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 13, 2014, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 13, 2014, 03:32:51 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 10, 2014, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2014, 10:40:19 PM
Signs should not be an extortionate revenue generator.
Why not. It costs taxpayers little to nothing, and can pay for highway improvements. Would you prefer higher fuel taxes instead?
If you're going to counter this, you may at least want to say that you're not defending extortion, which is what this response implies.
I don't have strong opinions on them, but the level of repudiation of dissent here is a little ridiculous.
Are they priced fairly so that mom-and-pop places have as much chance to take part in the state-subsidized advertising as Macaroni Grill does?
I know someone who runs the only available food service at a rural exit, but traffic dries up at night, making it uneconomical for them to stay open past the evening. Therefore, they can't get on the logo sign, whose rules require being open until 9 or so. So nobody wins.
I see plenty of local restaurants on logo signs, not just national chain restaurants.
Yes, there should be some standards as to the operating hours. And in my book, requiring being open till 9 pm isn't that onerous, as it serves a wide range of travelers.
(If the requirement is 24 hours, I'd say that's onerous, but if the requirements are only till 9pm, or even until 12 midnight, then I'd say that it's an acceptable objective standard.)
And I would also require open 7 days. So ... no Chick-Fil-A on the signs.
Quote from: mrsman on October 18, 2014, 10:06:45 PM
And I would also require open 7 days. So ... no Chick-Fil-A on the signs.
Chick-Fil-A puts a yellow banner on the bottom of their logo panels saying "Closed Sundays" to make it clear to motorists.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 18, 2014, 11:55:46 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 18, 2014, 10:06:45 PM
And I would also require open 7 days. So ... no Chick-Fil-A on the signs.
Chick-Fil-A puts a yellow banner on the bottom of their logo panels saying "Closed Sundays" to make it clear to motorists.
So then the logo signs should be open to all businesses, even if they close early, so long as motorists are informed.
Quote from: mrsman on October 18, 2014, 10:06:45 PM
Yes, there should be some standards as to the operating hours. And in my book, requiring being open till 9 pm isn't that onerous, as it serves a wide range of travelers.
(If the requirement is 24 hours, I'd say that's onerous, but if the requirements are only till 9pm, or even until 12 midnight, then I'd say that it's an acceptable objective standard.)
And I would also require open 7 days. So ... no Chick-Fil-A on the signs.
MUTCD's guidance (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2j.htm) isn't quite as strenuous as you'd like... For food and other logo signs:
Quote from: MUTCD - Chapter 2J: Specific Service Signs, Section 2J.01 Eligibility
Guidance:
10 If State or local agencies elect to provide Specific Service signing, there should be a statewide policy for such signing and criteria for the availability of the various types of services. The criteria should consider the following:
To qualify for a GAS logo sign panel, a business should have:
Vehicle services including gas and/or alternative fuels, oil, and water;
Continuous operation at least 16 hours per day, 7 days per week for freeways and expressways, and continuous operation at least 12 hours per day, 7 days per week for conventional roads;
Modern sanitary facilities and drinking water; and
Public telephone.
To qualify for a FOOD logo sign panel, a business should have:
Licensing or approval, where required;
Continuous operations to serve at least two meals per day, at least 6 days per week;
Modern sanitary facilities; and
Public telephone.
To qualify for a LODGING logo sign panel, a business should have:
Licensing or approval, where required;
Adequate sleeping accommodations;
Modern sanitary facilities; and
Public telephone.
To qualify for a CAMPING logo sign panel, a business should have:
Licensing or approval, where required;
Adequate parking accommodations; and
Modern sanitary facilities and drinking water.
To qualify for an ATTRACTION logo sign panel, a facility should have:
Regional significance, in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 6; and
Adequate parking accommodations.
Standard:
11 If State or local agencies elect to provide Specific Service signing for pharmacies, both of the following criteria shall be met for a pharmacy to qualify for signing:
The pharmacy shall be continuously operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and shall have a State-licensed pharmacist present and on duty at all times; and
The pharmacy shall be located within 3 miles of an interchange on the Federal-aid system.
Quote from: roadfro on October 20, 2014, 04:17:33 AM
Standard:
11 If State or local agencies elect to provide Specific Service signing for pharmacies, both of the following criteria shall be met for a pharmacy to qualify for signing:
The pharmacy shall be continuously operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and shall have a State-licensed pharmacist present and on duty at all times; and
The pharmacy shall be located within 3 miles of an interchange on the Federal-aid system.[/size]
I live in an urban area, and while I can name some drug and convenience stores open 24 hours, I cannot name a pharmacy counter that operates 24/7. Are they referring to a drug store (such as CVS, Rite Aid, etc.) or are they referring to the pharmacy counter located within the store? If they mean the drug store, that means they are defining the pharmacy to be a drug store that has a pharmacy counter (that is likely not open all night)? I know it's an odd distinction, but I think one's that worthwhile for traveling public looking for medical advice even for over-the-counter medications available at a typical drug store.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 20, 2014, 10:05:07 AM
Quote from: roadfro on October 20, 2014, 04:17:33 AM
Standard:
11 If State or local agencies elect to provide Specific Service signing for pharmacies, both of the following criteria shall be met for a pharmacy to qualify for signing:
The pharmacy shall be continuously operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and shall have a State-licensed pharmacist present and on duty at all times; and
The pharmacy shall be located within 3 miles of an interchange on the Federal-aid system.[/size]
I live in an urban area, and while I can name some drug and convenience stores open 24 hours, I cannot name a pharmacy counter that operates 24/7. Are they referring to a drug store (such as CVS, Rite Aid, etc.) or are they referring to the pharmacy counter located within the store? If they mean the drug store, that means they are defining the pharmacy to be a drug store that has a pharmacy counter (that is likely not open all night)? I know it's an odd distinction, but I think one's that worthwhile for traveling public looking for medical advice even for over-the-counter medications available at a typical drug store.
If it is a state-licensed pharmacist, they are talking about the pharmacy counter.
I can name a few in my town open 24/7: (2 Walgreens, 1 Osco), and a few more nearby (mostly Walgreens).
Interestingly, GCSLS hasn't updated their map with locations in a while. I have spotted some installations that are not on their map yet, including Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue, and more recently at I-10 and Avondale Boulevard, as well as I-10 and 99th Avenue in the eastbound direction. There are probably some others that I missed.
Now the urban logo signs in the west side seem to tie in with all the rural logo signs (which are from Dysart Road at the Avondale/Goodyear line west to the California border) with no clear boundary, since most exits on I-10 from 43rd Avenue westward now have logo signs installed. However, the rural logo signs are older and some of the logos are a bit faded, and also most of the rural logo signs do not feature an exit tab unless it contains more than one service type. However, I have seen some logo signs in the rural areas that simply have the generic category "SERVICES" instead of being divided into multiple service types.
I-17 is now complete, and it appears that I-10 is almost done. Loop 101 is also mostly complete except on the portion from Loop 202 to the Red Mountain Freeway, which won't be installed until 2016 due to the widening project. I think Loop 202 and SR 51 should begin sometime this month, and should continue through mid-2015, although the Red Mountain Freeway portion in western Mesa won't be complete until at least around late 2015 (around the same time as the US 60 Superstition Freeway).
Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2014, 01:07:03 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on October 20, 2014, 10:05:07 AM
Quote from: roadfro on October 20, 2014, 04:17:33 AM
Standard:
11 If State or local agencies elect to provide Specific Service signing for pharmacies, both of the following criteria shall be met for a pharmacy to qualify for signing:
The pharmacy shall be continuously operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and shall have a State-licensed pharmacist present and on duty at all times; and
The pharmacy shall be located within 3 miles of an interchange on the Federal-aid system.[/size]
I live in an urban area, and while I can name some drug and convenience stores open 24 hours, I cannot name a pharmacy counter that operates 24/7. Are they referring to a drug store (such as CVS, Rite Aid, etc.) or are they referring to the pharmacy counter located within the store? If they mean the drug store, that means they are defining the pharmacy to be a drug store that has a pharmacy counter (that is likely not open all night)? I know it's an odd distinction, but I think one's that worthwhile for traveling public looking for medical advice even for over-the-counter medications available at a typical drug store.
If it is a state-licensed pharmacist, they are talking about the pharmacy counter.
I can name a few in my town open 24/7: (2 Walgreens, 1 Osco), and a few more nearby (mostly Walgreens).
It's interesting to me how strenuous the requirement for signing pharmacies is. We allow gas stations with only 16 hours of operation, when that is a basic need for driving, yet pharmacies require 24 hour operation.
And I wonder whether grocery stores can be put on these signs as well.
To be honest, I would usually prefer to buy healthy food like fruit from a grocery store then eat fast food on road trips. It would be nice to know if there was a grocery nearby.
It's interesting that these rules come from the MUTCD. Some states make their own supplements to the MUTCD (like CALIF). Perhaps if Arizona wanted different standards for what types of businesses come up on the logo sign, they should just have their own supplement.
Quote from: mrsman on October 21, 2014, 12:01:11 AM
It's interesting that these rules come from the MUTCD. Some states make their own supplements to the MUTCD (like CALIF). Perhaps if Arizona wanted different standards for what types of businesses come up on the logo sign, they should just have their own supplement.
Note that, with the exception of the pharmacy signs, these are MUTCD recommended practices. Elsewhere it is stated that the state should develop it's own guidelines for logo sign programs.
The map on the GCSLS website has just been updated. I edited one of my previous posts with all the exits where logo signs have been installed last month. Quite a few were added on Loop 101.
I saw a logo board on Loop 202 (Red Mountain) at Higley Rd.
Quote from: blanketcomputer on November 02, 2014, 09:09:45 AM
I saw a logo board on Loop 202 (Red Mountain) at Higley Rd.
Cool, looks like ADOT has just started Loop 202. Still none on the SanTan Freeway, though. However, installation of logo signs the Red Mountain Freeway in west Mesa (from Loop 101 to around Gilbert Road) won't start until the second half of 2015 (which is around the same time that installation will begin on the US 60 Superstition Freeway). I can't wait until I see logo signs on the SanTan Freeway.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 02, 2014, 12:43:29 PM
Cool, looks like ADOT has just started Loop 202. Still none on the SanTan Freeway, though. However, installation of logo signs the Red Mountain Freeway in west Mesa (from Loop 101 to around Gilbert Road) won't start until the second half of 2015 (which is around the same time that installation will begin on the US 60 Superstition Freeway). I can't wait until I see logo signs on the SanTan Freeway.
Yeah, it makes sense the Red Mountain Freeway won't have its signs fully installed until after its current widening project. The Superstition Freeway has had a few logo signs east of the SuperRedTan interchange for a few years now. Were these installed in the past because the east Mesa/Apache Junction area was considered rural at the time?
Quote from: blanketcomputer on November 02, 2014, 02:25:14 PM
Yeah, it makes sense the Red Mountain Freeway won't have its signs fully installed until after its current widening project. The Superstition Freeway has had a few logo signs east of the SuperRedTan interchange for a few years now. Were these installed in the past because the east Mesa/Apache Junction area was considered rural at the time?
Yep, east Mesa/Apache Junction was considered rural at the time of installation, and I believe still might be. The same goes with I-10 in Goodyear and Buckeye, and I-17 north of Loop 303 in Phoenix.
Note that the Flagstaff and Yuma areas are eventually planned to be migrated over to the urban program in terms of sign specifications and pricing after buildout in the Phoenix and Tucson areas is complete.
Now I wonder if the Gateway Freeway (SR 24) is extended past Ellsworth, will logo signs be installed on that freeway?
BTW, I expect the South Mountain Freeway will have logo signs from the start.
The problem with logo signs in an urban area is that the signs greatly contribute to message loading and can overwhelm the driver. In a rural area, exits are generally at least 1 mi apart, giving you lots of room to interleave the logo signs with advance destination signage. In urban areas, that's usually not possible. Imagine sticking logo signs on Mile 51 of I-94 in Chicago. Yeah.
And even when you don't have closely spaced exits, urban area exits are more likely to have more important destinations than services. As a case study, lets look at the sequence of guide signs on I-35 North as you approach Exit 218 in Olathe, Kansas:
*Exit 218-Santa Fe, 2¼ miles
*[entrance ramp]
*Assurance (I-35/US-50/US-56/US-169)
*Attractions/Lodging
*Historic Mahaffie Stagecoach Stop/Deaf Cultural Center/Travel Info
*Food
*Santa Fe (1 mile)/119th Street/I-435/US-169 (median signage)
*(more) Food/Gas
*[entrance ramp]
*Assurance (I-35/US-50/US-56)
*Exit 218 - Santa Fe, Exit Only
*MidAmerica Nazarene University/Kansas State School for the Deaf
*Exit direction sign
That's four supplemental destinations and three logo signs. As a result, the only true advance signage for the exit itself is 2¼ miles(!) away from the exit. We do kind of get a 1-mile advance destination sign in the form of a median next-three-exits sign, but there's no standalone 1-mile advance sign. Notably, there are two entrance ramps along this stretch of road, both of which join after the 2¼ mile sign, and one of them (from the Old Hwy 56 partial interchange) falls less than a mile away from the exit. Their only notification of Exit 218 comes in the form of an Exit Only sign!
KDOT could not add more advance mileage signs on this stretch of highway because of the risk of message overloading. If the three logo signs were gone there would be a little more room to fit in guide signs. I would like to elaborate further on this example, but as I type the Logo Sign Opinion Police are at my door and I am shortly to be led away in handcuffs, and I'd like to take a moment to comb my hair so my mug shot comes out decent-looking. Ciao!
MUTCD requirements for 24 hour pharmacies are stringent because DOTs don't want them installed. Some national pharmacy chains got Congress to override FHWA on the issue, so FHWA wants to limit their use. As far as I know there is only one state that uses them. A second state had them but participation was so low that they stopped. All it really was meant to be by the pharmacy companies is free advertising, as opposed to random travelers entering the store at 2AM with a prescription to be filled.
As for MUTCD's suggestion of requirements for food establishments only needing to be open 6 days a week, Chick-Fil-A is entirely responsible for that. They submitted lots of comments in favor of that change during the rule making process. And if a state decides to be stricter than what the MUTCD suggests, and tries to require 7 day service, you better believe Chick-Fil-A will get a call into the Governor's office to get the DOT overruled.
Most logo sign programs are privately run by a company called Interstate Logos (that has a subsidiary in each state...Virginia Logos, Iowa Logos, etc.). I serve on a technical committee with the President of Intrrstate Logos, he's a really nice guy who knows a ton about the logistics and economics of these programs.
In Virginia, the program is not allowed to be profitable. If the program has a surplus, money is refunded to participants. But participants must pay the operating costs of the program, as taxpayers should not be paying for private company logos to appear on signs. The most you get at taxpayer expense is a gas pump logo on a general service sign.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 13, 2014, 11:29:09 PM
MUTCD requirements for 24 hour pharmacies are stringent because DOTs don't want them installed. Some national pharmacy chains got Congress to override FHWA on the issue, so FHWA wants to limit their use. As far as I know there is only one state that uses them. A second state had them but participation was so low that they stopped. All it really was meant to be by the pharmacy companies is free advertising, as opposed to random travelers entering the store at 2AM with a prescription to be filled.
Arizona actually allows 24-hour pharmacies in its urban logo sign program, however, there is yet to be even one 24-hour pharmacy that has signed on. So far, only food, gas, and lodging businesses have signed on to the urban logo sign program, however, I have heard there was supposed to be an attraction that was supposed to have a logo sign installed on Loop 101, replacing an existing brown sign. The lack of camping businesses though is fairly understandable, since most campgrounds are located in rural areas.
When we're talking about "rural" and "urban," there needs to be a clearer distinction. I have no issue with logo signs in suburban areas with substantial populations that direct motorists to strip malls and the like with free parking and easy access.
However, there are logo signs at Exit 3 (Neil Ave.) on I-670 in Columbus -- i.e. not a long-distance route -- that advertise restaurants in the densely packed Arena District. Those are a highly suspect money grab and should absolutely not be allowed.
Quote from: mtantillo on November 13, 2014, 11:29:09 PM
MUTCD requirements for 24 hour pharmacies are stringent because DOTs don't want them installed. Some national pharmacy chains got Congress to override FHWA on the issue, so FHWA wants to limit their use. As far as I know there is only one state that uses them. A second state had them but participation was so low that they stopped. All it really was meant to be by the pharmacy companies is free advertising, as opposed to random travelers entering the store at 2AM with a prescription to be filled.
As for MUTCD's suggestion of requirements for food establishments only needing to be open 6 days a week, Chick-Fil-A is entirely responsible for that. They submitted lots of comments in favor of that change during the rule making process. And if a state decides to be stricter than what the MUTCD suggests, and tries to require 7 day service, you better believe Chick-Fil-A will get a call into the Governor's office to get the DOT overruled.
Most logo sign programs are privately run by a company called Interstate Logos (that has a subsidiary in each state...Virginia Logos, Iowa Logos, etc.). I serve on a technical committee with the President of Intrrstate Logos, he's a really nice guy who knows a ton about the logistics and economics of these programs.
In Virginia, the program is not allowed to be profitable. If the program has a surplus, money is refunded to participants. But participants must pay the operating costs of the program, as taxpayers should not be paying for private company logos to appear on signs. The most you get at taxpayer expense is a gas pump logo on a general service sign.
I'm glad that these signs are generally paid for by the businesses. THey are cheap advertising.
In my view, they should be used for services that help the motoring public. Pharmacies and groceries do help many people and should be included. Restaurants in areas without plentiful parking are not helpful. Motel 6 and Best Western are helpful, Four Seasons and Westin not so helpful.
Monthly update - October / November 2014The GCSLS website has finally been updated, and there are several logo signs that have been added. Note that since it was updated today, I don't know which signs were installed in October or November. The first signs have been installed on the Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway.
- Loop 202 Red Mountain and 40th/44th Street
- Loop 202 Red Mountain and Priest Drive (Eastbound only. Also first ATTRACTION sign for the urban program)
- Loop 202 Red Mountain and Scottsdale Road
- Loop 202 Red Mountain and Higley Road
- Loop 202 Red Mountain and Recker Road
- Loop 202 Red Mountain and McKellips Road (Exit 24)
- Loop 202 Red Mountain and University Drive
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:21:25 PM
Monthly Update - December 2014As per GCSLS website.
- Loop 101 and Princess Drive (northbound only)
It seems like a good number of the signs so far only have QuikTrip on them. If a company signs up today, how long would they have to wait to be added to a sign?
Quote from: blanketcomputer on January 08, 2015, 12:24:50 PM
It seems like a good number of the signs so far only have QuikTrip on them. If a company signs up today, how long would they have to wait to be added to a sign?
Not sure. Note that at some interchanges where the potential demand exceeds the available supply of sign space, those who get their place on a sign is determined by a competitive bidding process.
Note that I actually see far more food businesses who have signed up for the urban logo sign program than gas and lodging businesses. Some interchanges have more than one Food sign per direction; I never see more than one Gas or Lodging sign per direction. QT seems to be far more interested in the program than other gas businesses, however, I have also seen Chevron, Shell, ARCO, Fry's, Flying J, and Pilot as well on some of the Phoenix area logo signs as well. You can view photos of every logo sign in the state at the Grand Canyon State Logo Signs website, although sometimes they take a while to update each interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:21:16 PM
FYI, this past month the exit at Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue got a massive amount of lodging businesses (and one additional food business) to sign up; this is the only exit in the Valley with a full 6 panel LODGING sign. This particular exit is where Westgate is located. The reason for the delay of installation for some of these businesses (five lodging and one food) is that it required pathfinder signs to be placed on City of Glendale right-of-way, which they have approved as of October 28, 2014. Five pathfinder signs have been installed (three on Glendale Avenue, one on 95th Avenue, and one on Zanjero Boulevard).
So far, the cities of Phoenix, Avondale, and Glendale have approved to allow ADOT to install pathfinder signs on city right-of-way, although there hasn't been any need for their installation in Avondale so far. On the other hand, the City of Scottsdale has declined to allow ADOT to place pathfinder signs on city right-of-way, thus any business in Scottsdale who wants to sign up for a logo sign must be located directly on and clearly visible from the main exited road; those who are located on a cross street or who are not clearly visible from the main exited road will not be eligible.
Scottsdale IMO is such a snobby city; they try to do everything against what other Phoenix area cities do. They declined light rail, and now they decline to allow many poor businesses to get a logo sign except if they are directly on the main exited road and are clearly visible.
I was driving by on the 101 in the west valley this evening and I spotted some new logo signs at Indian school road, advertising for businesses on Thomas road.
I drove this same stretch of freeway yesterday afternoon and did not notice them then, so I believe they were installed last night. Just FYI.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on March 04, 2015, 10:59:47 PM
I was driving by on the 101 in the west valley this evening and I spotted some new logo signs at Indian school road, advertising for businesses on Thomas road.
I drove this same stretch of freeway yesterday afternoon and did not notice them then, so I believe they were installed last night. Just FYI.
They are only installed in the southbound direction for that particular exit. They were installed in June of last year. That is unless a set of signs have also recently been installed in the northbound direction, or a second panel with additional logos has been installed in the southbound direction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:21:12 PM
Somewhat off-topic: I have been pondering about the program, and after installation is complete in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, Flagstaff and Yuma are planned to be transitioned from the rural program to the urban program.
What I have been wondering about is how will businesses in Flagstaff and Yuma be affected by these changes.
In the rural program, the rates are a flat monthly fee (although camping businesses may be eligible for discounts), with mainline freeway signage being $120/month, ramp and trailblazer signage $18/month, and non-freeway signage $44/month. For freeway and ramp signage, that translates to $1656/year.
In the urban program, on the other hand, leases are annual and are based on AADT. In most cases the urban pricing will be higher than the rural pricing except if the AADT is less than 30,000 (which the rate is $1600/year). On some urban exits where the likely demand exceeds the available supply, ADOT conducts competitive bids to determine who gets their position on the signs.
Also, the urban program limits the number of mainline signs per direction to two per interchange. Some exits in Flagstaff and Yuma have up to four signs per direction. Some businesses may have an issue with this change as there will less space to get on one the signs.
Does anyone have their own opinion?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:21:10 PM
According to a recent news article, the first logo signs along SR 51 have been installed this month. However, no mention on specific exits and the GCSLS website hasn't been updated with them yet. Buildout for SR 51 (and I presume Loop 202 except the Red Mountain Freeway between Loop 101 and Gilbert Road) is scheduled to complete in July of this year, with the next phase being the US 60 Superstition Freeway and Loop 202 Red Mountain between Loop 101 and Gilbert Road.
EDIT: I also asked GCSLS when should the SanTan Freeway will be getting some, and they should go up in June and should also be completed by the end of July for the interchanges that are participating. I think there will be a lot of interest at Arizona Avenue, Williams Field Road, Power Road, and possibly the Val Vista exit. Not sure if the cities of Chandler, Gilbert, or Mesa have approved the installation of pathfinder signs on municipal right of way for business who are located on a cross street or not clearly visible from the main road off the freeway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:21:08 PM
Update - March/April 2015Here are several new installations for the past two months, with the first signs officially up on SR 51:
- SR 51 and Bethany Home Road
- SR 51 and Glendale Avenue/Lincoln Drive
- SR 51 and 32nd Street (northbound only)
- SR 51 and Cactus Road
- SR 51 and Greenway Road
- SR 51 and Bell Road
- Loop 101 and 56th Street
Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 23, 2015, 12:43:03 PM
Here are several new installations for the past two months, with the first signs officially up on SR 51:
And these are all new 'logo' signs, meaning blue signs with points of interest on them? Interesting. I can't think of any new logo signs in my area, frankly ever. POIs on existing signs change every so often, but completely new signs...I can't think of any. The 395 Freeway in Spokane might have a couple, but I haven't been able to visit so I couldn't be sure.
I've noticed some signs along the Red Mountain Freeway have been updated to include more companies. I guess that sheds some light on my previous question of the wait time on updating the logo boards. I also thought it was interesting that a Village Inn in Mesa at McKellips Road and Recker Road is on the logo board of Loop 202 at the exit for McKellips and the exit for Recker Road. Are there any other companies with a single location on two separate interchange signs?
Quote from: blanketcomputer on April 24, 2015, 11:06:53 AM
I've noticed some signs along the Red Mountain Freeway have been updated to include more companies. I guess that sheds some light on my previous question of the wait time on updating the logo boards. I also thought it was interesting that a Village Inn in Mesa at McKellips Road and Recker Road is on the logo board of Loop 202 at the exit for McKellips and the exit for Recker Road. Are there any other companies with a single location on two separate interchange signs?
What new businesses did you notice? I don't see any on the photos on the GCSLS website, so I guess they haven't posted the photos of the updated signs on Loop 202. As far as I know, there are no other single location businesses who have a sign at two different exits. However, soon there will be logo signs installed at the Highland Avenue and Colter Street exits on SR 51, with Smashburger, Chick-Fil-A, Chipolte, and Culver's on the signs for both exits. These interchanges were bid separately; QuikTrip will only be on the Highland sign, while Starbucks will only be on the Colter sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:21:05 PM
Interestingly, the I-10 and Chandler Blvd seems to generate a lot of demand for logo signs, as GCSLS has announced today 12 winning bidders for the 2015-2016 lease on that particular interchange (10 Food and 2 Lodging), although only half of the winning bidders will be signed in both directions due to lack of available sign space in the westbound direction for two panels; I assume those that get signed only one way will only pay half of their bid. Perhaps it could be because this is the first/last exit in and out of the main Phoenix area (not counting Loop 202/Pecos Road), since the next exit in the eastbound direction falls under the scope of the rural logo sign program.
I actually saw an article about the new logo signs in Phoenix:
http://ktar.com/22/1820847/Service-signs-continue-to-pop-up-along-Valley-freeways
QuoteSigns that inform drivers about what kind of services are available at exits along freeways are becoming a more common sight in the Valley.
The big blue signs, commonly see along rural highways, are part of a multi-year program by the Arizona Department of Transportation to generate some revenue and keep drivers informed.
Recently signs have been popping up along State Route 51 in Phoenix.
"The build out will be completed on the 51 by July 1 or so of this year and then we have more to do, we have other freeways that we will focus on," said ADOT Spokeswoman Laura Douglas.
Additional freeways in the Valley that will receive signs include U.S. 60, I-10, I-17, Loop 101 and others, Douglas said.
After work in the Valley is complete, Douglas said the signs will be installed in other urban areas of the state as well. ...
Besides keeping drivers informed, Douglas said the signs also help bring in revenue for the department because businesses bid to have their logos put on them. "The minimum bid has been established at $3,200 a year," Douglas said.
Each sign has six logo spaces and to keep things fair, ADOT uses a bidding system where the second highest bid is the one that prevails, Douglas said.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 11, 2015, 12:03:03 AM
I actually saw an article about the new logo signs in Phoenix:
http://ktar.com/22/1820847/Service-signs-continue-to-pop-up-along-Valley-freeways
Yep, I already saw that article a while ago. The current buildout phase is for SR 51 and Loop 202, which are planned to be mostly complete by the end of July except for the portion of the Red Mountain Freeway between Loop 101 and Gilbert Road, which is currently being widened. That portion of Loop 202 as well as the US 60 Superstition Freeway will be the next phase. After that in 2016 will be the remaining portion of Loop 101 between the Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway and Shea Blvd. Finally, Loop 303 is planned for 2018.
BTW, I wonder when should the buildout in the Tucson area begin. Perhaps in 2017 would seem likely.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:17:55 PM
Looking at the GCSLS website, it appears that many signs have recently gotten more logos added to them, even at interchanges that logo placement was determined by a competitive bid. For example, for the 2014-2015 lease at the I-10 and Ray Road exit, there were only four winning bidders (Jack in the Box, Red Lobster, Barro's Pizza, and IHOP). However, two new logos have since been added to the signs for this interchange (Mellow Mushroom Pizza and Chick-Fil-A).
I wonder, at interchanges that are determined by competitive bids, if there are not enough winning bidders to fill the full capacity of available sign space, do other businesses get to pay the fixed rate card pricing based on AADT to fill the rest of the sign? That would be interesting to know.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
UPDATE - May 2015Today, I just saw the first logo signs installed on the Loop 202 SanTan Freeway, at the following exits:
- Loop 202 SanTan and Price Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Alma School Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Arizona Avenue (incompletely signed as of May 28, 2015; all ramp signs installed with Food and Gas businesses, but only Gas-QuikTrip currently installed on mainline signage)
Follow-Up - June 5, 2015 - Today, when driving on the 202 SanTan Freeway, the posts have gone up for the installation of logo signs on every exit from Arizona Avenue to Power Road. It seems that installation is progressing fast on the SanTan Freeway. This includes posts for the additional Food signs at the Arizona Avenue exit, which are currently only signed at the ramps. Based on what I saw, the McQueen, Cooper, Val Vista, SanTan Village, Williams Field, and Higley exits will have one sign per direction, while the Arizona, Gilbert, and Power exits will have two signs per direction. In addition, there are also posts installed for logo signs at the Guadalupe exit as well, also with one sign per direction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:17:50 PM
Update - June 18, 2015This week, several more logo signs have gone up at several exits on the Loop 202 SanTan Freeway, although some ramp signs have yet to be installed.
Here are the ones I saw:
- Loop 202 SanTan and Kyrene
- Loop 202 SanTan and Cooper
- Loop 202 SanTan and Gilbert Road (ramp signs not yet installed as of 6-17-15)
- Loop 202 SanTan and Val Vista (ramp signs not yet installed as of 6-17-15)
- Loop 202 SanTan and Guadalupe
I am pretty sure that most of the exits from SanTan Village to Power also have their logo signs installed by now as well, since the posts for them went up two weeks ago. Exceptions include the Hawes, SR 24, and Elliot exits, likely due to lack of spacing (plus lack of services at the Hawes exit).
Also, the missing mainline Food signs have been installed at the Arizona exit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:17:48 PM
UPDATE - June/July 2015Here is a list of exits that have gotten new logo signs installed in the past two months:
- Loop 101 Pima and Raintree Drive
- Loop 202 SanTan and Kyrene Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Cooper Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Gilbert Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Val Vista Drive
- Loop 202 SanTan and SanTan Village Parkway
- Loop 202 SanTan and Williams Field Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Higley Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Power Road
- Loop 202 SanTan and Guadalupe Road
- SR 51 and McDowell Road
- SR 51 and Thomas Road
- SR 51 and Indian School Road (southbound only)
- SR 51 and Highland Avenue (northbound only)
- SR 51 and Colter Street (southbound only)
- SR 51 and Northern Avenue
- SR 51 and Union Hills Drive
Also, I think the engineering studies for US 60 are currently ongoing and installation should begin this fall.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:17:46 PM
I decided to email GCSLS for some clarification on a few things, and here are some updates that I got:
- Installation of logo signs on the US 60 Superstition Freeway (west of Loop 202) is supposed to begin late this month. Sales have just been completed.
- I-10 in Goodyear, as well as US 60 east of Loop 202 in east Mesa and Apache Junction, will be migrated from the rural program to the urban program.
- At first, I incorrectly assumed that SR 143 will not be getting logo signs due to tight exit spacing. However, this is not the case, as GCSLS has just completed the engineering study for their installation on SR 143.
Considering that SR 143 will be getting logo signs, I wonder if I-10 from 35th Avenue to Baseline Road will also be getting them soon. Perhaps GCSLS was focusing on the more suburban areas first before moving into the inner city. I remember reading that the below grade portion of I-17 south of Dunlap will not be getting logo signs due to lack of shoulder room.
BTW, the engineering study for their installation Loop 303 won't be until 2018. I assume that they are waiting for construction to finish and to install logo signs on Tucson area freeways before starting on 303.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
I think that installation of logo signs on the US 60 Superstition Freeway just might be getting started now, since I just saw two pairs of holes dug at two different exit gore areas on the Tempe portion of the freeway, presumably for the mounting posts. I will edit this post with some updates soon.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:17:57 PM
Another update, still no logo signs on the US 60 Superstition Freeway west of Loop 202 yet, however, the concrete bases for the logo sign posts have been buried for all exits from Mill Avenue to Power Road. It looks like we could see logo signs installed very soon.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:18:00 PM
Update:
As of yesterday, the posts to install the logo signs on the US 60 Superstition Freeway have gone up at most exits from Mill to Power, except for a few in the eastbound direction on the Tempe portion of the freeway, as well as a few ramps. I think the signs should be installed by the end of this week or early next week before Thanksgiving.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 07, 2016, 01:18:02 PM
And all of the logo signs on the US 60 Superstition Freeway are officially up (I saw ADOT crews installing one today at the last exit without one at US 60 and Mill westbound), at the following exits:
- US 60 and Mill Avenue
- US 60 and Rural Road
- US 60 and McClintock Drive
- US 60 and Dobson Road
- US 60 and Alma School Road
- US 60 and Country Club Drive
- US 60 and Mesa Drive
- US 60 and Stapley Drive
- US 60 and Gilbert Road
- US 60 and Val Vista Drive
- US 60 and Greenfield Road
- US 60 and Higley Road
- US 60 and Superstition Springs Boulevard (eastbound exit only)
- US 60 and Power Road
The only exits (other than freeway exits) that I didn't see any were at Priest Drive, Sossaman Road, and Ellsworth Road (although the latter has logo signs in the westbound direction as part of the rural program).
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 10, 2014, 09:01:42 PM
Quote from: corco on October 10, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
QuoteIMO it should be illegal to be opposed to them.
Holy crap, dude. It's the logo sign Stasi.
The problem is that there is absolutely no valid reason to be opposed to them; they are useful to motorists and a source of revenue for the state that will usually pay itself off.
There is a valid reason, as I mentioned in my post. I don't like them.
Quote from: 404inthe404 on August 07, 2016, 03:11:13 AM
There is a valid reason, as I mentioned in my post. I don't like them.
That is surprising, considering you live in Atlanta, which has had logo signs on its freeways for years. Are you going to protest to GDOT about them? It is probably far too late to have them removed, since they have been there for years and GDOT is probably unwilling to give up on all the revenue generated from them. "I don't like them" is
NOT a valid reason for them to be removed.
Just as an update, it looks like Chandler has approved the installation of trailblazer signs, since I saw one on Gilbert Road off of Loop 202 directing traffic to YC's Mongolian Grill. So it looks like so far the cities that we know that have approved the installation of trailblazer logo signs on city right-of-way include Phoenix, Avondale, Glendale, and now Chandler, while we know that Scottsdale has rejected them. No word on Mesa, Gilbert, Tempe, Peoria, Tolleson, or Surprise.
Another update, it looks like I-10 in Goodyear is now being transitioned to the urban program in terms of pricing after being part of the rural program for many years, since ADOT did put out a bid for the I-10 and Estrella exit. This follows the Flagstaff and Yuma areas.
I think there are also plans to transition the US 60 Superstition Freeway east of Loop 202 in Mesa and Apache Junction to the urban program as well. I wonder if Casa Grande will also eventually become part of the urban program, considering it now has over 50,000 people per the 2015 Census estimate, since the state's current rules specify that cities with a population over 50,000 should fall under the scope of the urban program.
Another update, I can confirm that Casa Grande is being transitioned to the urban logo sign program, since GCSLS just put out a bid for I-10 Exit 194.