AARoads Forum

In my other thread that tracks the installation of logo signs on Phoenix area freeways, there seemed to be a split on whether or not logo signs should be installed in urban areas.  So, I decided to do a poll to see what is the overall consensus.

I am strongly for them in urban areas, since they can reduce the temptation of drivers to pull out their smartphones to look for nearby services on Google or Yelp while driving at highway speeds, thus increasing safety.  In addition, the revenue potential for logo signs in urban areas is far greater than in rural areas, since there are far more businesses willing to compete for a position on the signs.  I really wish all states would allow logo signs in urban areas.

EDIT: For those who vote against, please provide a valid reason.

I like them, but sometimes the amenities offered aren't in the best of neighborhoods. No, I'm not advocating for them to place a warning or anything, but if it's late at night and you're starving and you see a sign for a Burger King in a city you're not familiar with, you could put yourself in a bit of danger.

Quote from: Zeffy on November 13, 2014, 01:22:31 PM
if it's late at night and you're starving and you see a sign for a Burger King in a city you're not familiar with, you could put yourself in a bit of danger.

This is never true of rural areas. Nobody will ever attack a hep cat/cigarette/insert other bowdlerized slur for daring to enter Hicksville.

Quote from: Zeffy on November 13, 2014, 01:22:31 PM
I like them, but sometimes the amenities offered aren't in the best of neighborhoods. No, I'm not advocating for them to place a warning or anything, but if it's late at night and you're starving and you see a sign for a Burger King in a city you're not familiar with, you could put yourself in a bit of danger.

Coward.

I strongly support these signs and think that all limited access roads should have them.

I think services signing–particularly logo signing–is probably more useful in an urban environment than a rural one.

In many rural areas, the absence of zoning restrictions on sign heights and billboards often results in a steady stream of roadside ads prior to an interchange, then a grove of McDonalds, Motel 6, and Exxon signs towering over the area immediately surrounding the ramps. You typically don't have that advantage in an urban setting.

Further, the consequences of choosing the wrong exit in many rural areas are minimal: Traffic volumes are generally low, interchanges are frequently simple four-ramp diamonds, and if you get to the bottom of the ramp and don't see anything, you can easily dart up the opposing on-ramp. Take the wrong exit in an urban environment, however, and you're more likely to get caught in local traffic, find yourself in an unfamiliar grid with one-way streets, U-turn prohibitions, etc.

Quote from: briantroutman on November 13, 2014, 01:45:38 PM
Further, the consequences of choosing the wrong exit in many rural areas are minimal: Traffic volumes are generally low, interchanges are frequently simple four-ramp diamonds, and if you get to the bottom of the ramp and don't see anything, you can easily dart up the opposing on-ramp. Take the wrong exit in an urban environment, however, and you're more likely to get caught in local traffic, find yourself in an unfamiliar grid with one-way streets, U-turn prohibitions, etc.

That might be the reason why they're so rare.  If you get off to follow a logo sign, there's no guarantee you could get back on again in the same direction (or at all).

In strictly urban areas such as a motorway through downtown, I'm against their use since it only adds to the clutter, and you shouldn't encourage people to stop where there's already such a high AADT. In semi-urban or rural areas though they're very useful, mostly at exits. In Sweden we've been using them for at least 20 years along motorways and major roads, and they're very useful when taking a break or you need to refuel your car.

Distance example (http://goo.gl/maps/RKL9q) and at exit example (http://goo.gl/maps/rDVa5) (not the same location as first example).

Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2014, 01:53:46 PM

Quote from: briantroutman on November 13, 2014, 01:45:38 PM
Further, the consequences of choosing the wrong exit in many rural areas are minimal: Traffic volumes are generally low, interchanges are frequently simple four-ramp diamonds, and if you get to the bottom of the ramp and don't see anything, you can easily dart up the opposing on-ramp. Take the wrong exit in an urban environment, however, and you're more likely to get caught in local traffic, find yourself in an unfamiliar grid with one-way streets, U-turn prohibitions, etc.

That might be the reason why they're so rare.  If you get off to follow a logo sign, there's no guarantee you could get back on again in the same direction (or at all).

Federal guidelines for logo signs require the interchange or very nearby surrounding area to allow the motorist to re-enter the highway in the same direction of travel.

QuoteSection 2J.01 Eligibility...
Guidance:
04 Specific Service signs should not be installed at an interchange where the road user cannot conveniently reenter the freeway or expressway and continue in the same direction of travel.

Quote from: riiga on November 13, 2014, 01:55:20 PM
In strictly urban areas such as a motorway through downtown, I'm against their use since it only adds to the clutter, and you shouldn't encourage people to stop where there's already such a high AADT.

Well, dense downtown areas pretty much preclude their installation, as the MUTCD requires there to be adequate sign spacing in order to install logo signs in urban areas.  This is why there are no plans to install logo signs in Phoenix on I-10 from 35th Avenue to the US 60 Superstition Freeway interchange, on I-17 on any exit south of Dunlap, nor on SR 143.  Atlanta is similar, where logo signs are installed on most of the area's freeways except near Downtown Atlanta.  However, urban areas outside of dense downtown areas can typically have one or two logo signs per direction without any issue.

I voted "against" because I don't like the idea of adding more signs in areas where there already a lot of signs to process. The person familiar with the area who doesn't need to process all those signs is already likely to know where services like gas/food are. The person unfamiliar with the area who theoretically needs the signs for direction has enough to process without throwing more into the mix.

I am distinguishing "urban" from "suburban" when I consider my response, BTW.

Quote from: bugo on November 13, 2014, 01:34:49 PM
I strongly support these signs and think that all limited access roads should have them.

This is pretty close to my opinion. I can understand if there is a lot of sign clutter, but I think these signs can still be helpful. And hey, if you get caught in extremely slow traffic (which can happen in large cities), you'll have plenty of time to read the logo signs.  :-D

There's a reasonableness factor too...the signs won't be of much help if the exits and restaurants are in areas where there isn't any available (free) parking and the restaurant is simply on the ground floor of a highrise.  And because many cities feature one-way streets, it may not be possible to easily return to the highway (yes, you would think a few right turns would lead you back to the highway or starting point, but highway ramps in cities tend to be a bit windy).  On the outskirts of the city, where businesses are close together but at least they have their own parking lots, then these signs would be of better use.

I'm for this, mainly because it's nice to know where gas stations and restaurants are. New York uses them in some regions and eschews them in others. For example, Region 1 uses logo signs except inside Adirondack Park (APA regulations), including in the immediate suburbs of Albany, but Region 5 only uses them for hotels (and even that's a rarity).

Cities' restaurants don't cluster at exits like rural and suburban ones do.  Motorists will often have to navigate unfamiliar neighborhoods with little reference, and the nature of urban highways is often such that there's no companion back-on-ramp to an off-ramp, defeating the "easy off, easy-on" situation a traveler would desire.  You might say, "most people have access to a GPS-based navigation device, an increasing number of which can be talked to without ever looking off the road," and then you have the answer to why these signs are headed for obsolescence in both urban and rural areas.

In heavily urbanized areas I'm against them. In metro areas in the East, I think they are of limited use, since it is much better to stop in suburban or rural areas where services are clustered at exits. In the West, however, things are different. You are most likely to stop for services in towns and major metro areas than in rural areas. There is often nothing in rural areas. When driving out west, I look for the next big town. When driving in the east, I look in any place but the major cities and towns.

One case where this west vs. east thing threw me off was on my first trip out west, entering Colorado, I figured I'd find a hotel in a rural area near Denver. Nothing, anyhwhere. So I figured I'd find a hotel in Denver. Then when I got to the Denver area I discovered there are no services signs and had trouble finding a convenient hotel to stay in.

Also, the concern about being led to a service in "da hood" is a valid one...had a bad experience in Alabama once where I was getting sized up by some people who looked like they were up to no good...they started following me and then making fun of me in hopes that they could provoke a fight. I got the heck out of there very quickly.

I am for them. They are just as useful in urban areas as they are in rural areas. They are especially important in areas where the exits are wa yin advance of the intersecting roadway that they are for.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 04:40:46 PM
Cities' restaurants don't cluster at exits like rural and suburban ones do.

Wanna bet?  There are some serious clusters of restaurants and gas stations at exits in Chicago.  Yes, well within the municipal limits.  A classic example is 87th Street and the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94) (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73579,-87.624807&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16).

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73483,-87.62352&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.735049,-87.624527&panoid=YLkME6DI1YOmsTVWlRXt5w&cbp=12,346.16,,0,-5.3).

For:

1) With the amount of soundwalls on urban freeways anymore, it can be hard to if there's anything at the exit in question.

2) See other the reasons posted by briantroutman.

Long as they have follow up signs if the businesses are far away from the interchange with multiple turns to reach it they are okay with me.

Too bad the NJTA will not let the GSP and the NJT have them in urban areas due to competing with their own service areas.  The GSP now goes through many places where Gas, food, and lodging are but cannot be seen from the roadways.   I have been a victim to New Jersey's made for local signs on the Parkway before, as I landed in Cape May off the Cape May- Lewes Ferry late in the evening, and had trouble finding lodging off the Parkway due to its lack of blue signs.  Of course, North Jersey I would have no problem growing up there, but South Jersey was foreign to me as I had never visited there the 25 years I lived in the Garden State, especially south of Atlantic City. 

I ended up paying 75 bucks at a motel in Wildwood in the resort area just for a simple night's sleep in a bed.  I could have drove to North Jersey or even Absecon where US 30 had plenty of motels reasonably priced, but wanted so bad to visit the famous Wildwood Boardwalk and lay out on the beach there.  True Exits 4 and 6 may not of had motels right off the Parkway, but it would be nice to that too by lack of signs that should be at every interchange with services.

I voted "for." My own experience is the primary reason. There's been more than one time I would have appreciated such a sign in an urban or suburban area.

Quote from: Brandon on November 13, 2014, 05:32:28 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 04:40:46 PM
Cities' restaurants don't cluster at exits like rural and suburban ones do.

Wanna bet?  There are some serious clusters of restaurants and gas stations at exits in Chicago.  Yes, well within the municipal limits.  A classic example is 87th Street and the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94) (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73579,-87.624807&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16).

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73483,-87.62352&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.735049,-87.624527&panoid=YLkME6DI1YOmsTVWlRXt5w&cbp=12,346.16,,0,-5.3).

This is generally not the case here in the Northeast, and it's a giant clusterfuck getting off and on in many places local to me (and, say, in New York).

Moreover, in a city with a thriving real estate market, fast chain anything (the type that unfamiliar motorists tend to gravitate toward) is generally not going to cover the cost of the lot.  To my knowledge, there's one fast food place adjacent to I-93 south of Stoneham until you get to... Quincy?  Braintree?  And not a heck of a lot of easy-off-and-on gas. 

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 10:21:38 PM

Quote from: Brandon on November 13, 2014, 05:32:28 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 04:40:46 PM
Cities' restaurants don't cluster at exits like rural and suburban ones do.

Wanna bet?  There are some serious clusters of restaurants and gas stations at exits in Chicago.  Yes, well within the municipal limits.  A classic example is 87th Street and the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94) (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73579,-87.624807&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16).

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73483,-87.62352&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.735049,-87.624527&panoid=YLkME6DI1YOmsTVWlRXt5w&cbp=12,346.16,,0,-5.3).

This is generally not the case here in the Northeast, and it's a giant clusterfuck getting off and on in many places local to me (and, say, in New York).

Agree completely. There are clusters in the suburbs, but that isn't the case inside large cities up here.

I favor logo signs, as long as they aren't a means for generating revenue. I'll point to my previous post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13208.msg2012623#msg2012623) for a detailed explanation. Nutshell is that I believe if you start pricing the cost of advertising based on demand then some serious equity issues arise where chains have a significant advantage over non-chains, and that attempting to charge user fees disproportionate to the cost of providing service for advertising on government signs in a public right of way as a means to generate revenue would fail in court if ever challenged.

Many states agree with that thinking by charging only the cost of sign erection, maintenance, and a reasonable administration fee for their logo sign programs. Arizona is trying to use it as a revenue generator, and I maintain that that will be found illegal when somebody challenges it in court. I also believe that even if it were found to be a legal revenue generator, it still doesn't generate enough revenue to be worth the equity issues.

As long as the fees are such that Joe's Newly-Opened Cafe has just as much an opportunity to buy a logo sign as McDonald's (where even if the franchise can't afford it, corporate can provide low to no interest loans to supply the up-front costs for that ad space), I support logo signs. Beyond that, I do not.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 10:21:38 PM

Quote from: Brandon on November 13, 2014, 05:32:28 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 04:40:46 PM
Cities' restaurants don't cluster at exits like rural and suburban ones do.

Wanna bet?  There are some serious clusters of restaurants and gas stations at exits in Chicago.  Yes, well within the municipal limits.  A classic example is 87th Street and the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94) (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73579,-87.624807&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16).

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73483,-87.62352&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.735049,-87.624527&panoid=YLkME6DI1YOmsTVWlRXt5w&cbp=12,346.16,,0,-5.3).

This is generally not the case here in the Northeast, and it's a giant clusterfuck getting off and on in many places local to me (and, say, in New York).

Moreover, in a city with a thriving real estate market, fast chain anything (the type that unfamiliar motorists tend to gravitate toward) is generally not going to cover the cost of the lot.  To my knowledge, there's one fast food place adjacent to I-93 south of Stoneham until you get to... Quincy?  Braintree?  And not a heck of a lot of easy-off-and-on gas. 

Maybe that's how it is in the Northeast, but most other areas I've seen do have fast chains, even in thriving real estate markets.  Some municipalities make parking a requirement.

Many urban areas do not even have tall mast signs that usually appear at most interchanges that we rely on.  This is another factor to consider. 

My hometown was one that had an ordinance against high signs facing the Garden State Parkway after Howard Johnson put theirs up.  The Ramada Inn (now Holiday Inn) could not put up such an assembly when opening in 1974.  So signs like these would help a situation like the Ramada faced (I am talking elsewhere as the GSP is a toll road not ever considering these logo signs) in a big way.

Quote from: Brandon on November 14, 2014, 11:22:10 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 10:21:38 PM

Quote from: Brandon on November 13, 2014, 05:32:28 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2014, 04:40:46 PM
Cities' restaurants don't cluster at exits like rural and suburban ones do.

Wanna bet?  There are some serious clusters of restaurants and gas stations at exits in Chicago.  Yes, well within the municipal limits.  A classic example is 87th Street and the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94) (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73579,-87.624807&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16).

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.73483,-87.62352&spn=0.009543,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.735049,-87.624527&panoid=YLkME6DI1YOmsTVWlRXt5w&cbp=12,346.16,,0,-5.3).

This is generally not the case here in the Northeast, and it's a giant clusterfuck getting off and on in many places local to me (and, say, in New York).

Moreover, in a city with a thriving real estate market, fast chain anything (the type that unfamiliar motorists tend to gravitate toward) is generally not going to cover the cost of the lot.  To my knowledge, there's one fast food place adjacent to I-93 south of Stoneham until you get to... Quincy?  Braintree?  And not a heck of a lot of easy-off-and-on gas. 

Maybe that's how it is in the Northeast, but most other areas I've seen do have fast chains, even in thriving real estate markets.  Some municipalities make parking a requirement.

Parking is increasingly discouraged in neighborhoods here; along highways, not as much, but it's only part of the issue.  Development just doesn't favor the convenience-service market much.  And even just based on casual unscientific questioning here on these forums (where I think folks are more adventurous than most), people don't generally want to go hunt out the little mom-and-pops off the beaten path when they're trying to get someplace.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
Many urban areas do not even have tall mast signs that usually appear at most interchanges that we rely on.  This is another factor to consider. 

My hometown was one that had an ordinance against high signs facing the Garden State Parkway after Howard Johnson put theirs up.  The Ramada Inn (now Holiday Inn) could not put up such an assembly when opening in 1974.  So signs like these would help a situation like the Ramada faced (as the GSP is a toll road not ever considering these logo signs) in a big way.

A lot of toll roads do feature logo signs for hotels. For example, NYSTA has logophobia (not wanting to undermine service plazas), even past the last service areas (west of Angola, south of Ramapo, or EB Berkshire Spur). Yet, they typically post logo signs for hotels and attractions, as there are no such facilities present at service areas (unlike much of Europe).

Are signs like this one (http://www.instantstreetview.com/2d562tz1r0hi9z34yzq8zbf) "logo signs?", because if so, then I don't mind them (I need an admin to change my vote to "for" if that's the case).

Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 14, 2014, 11:42:16 AM
Are signs like this one (http://www.instantstreetview.com/2d562tz1r0hi9z34yzq8zbf) "logo signs?", because if so, then I don't mind them (I need an admin to change my vote to "for" if that's the case).

Yes, those are logo signs (you can also have FOOD or LODGING instead of GAS, or you can have a combination of them of the sign). Also, it isn't possible to change a user's vote directly without resetting the entire vote count.

Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 14, 2014, 11:42:16 AM
Are signs like this one (http://www.instantstreetview.com/2d562tz1r0hi9z34yzq8zbf) "logo signs?", because if so, then I don't mind them (I need an admin to change my vote to "for" if that's the case).

Yes

Ah. Then I support them. They can be quite useful for people who are from out of town.

Quote from: corco on November 13, 2014, 10:41:38 PM
I favor logo signs, as long as they aren't a means for generating revenue. I'll point to my previous post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13208.msg2012623#msg2012623) for a detailed explanation. Nutshell is that I believe if you start pricing the cost of advertising based on demand then some serious equity issues arise where chains have a significant advantage over non-chains, and that attempting to charge user fees disproportionate to the cost of providing service for advertising on government signs in a public right of way as a means to generate revenue would fail in court if ever challenged.

Many states agree with that thinking by charging only the cost of sign erection, maintenance, and a reasonable administration fee for their logo sign programs. Arizona is trying to use it as a revenue generator, and I maintain that that will be found illegal when somebody challenges it in court. I also believe that even if it were found to be a legal revenue generator, it still doesn't generate enough revenue to be worth the equity issues.

As long as the fees are such that Joe's Newly-Opened Cafe has just as much an opportunity to buy a logo sign as McDonald's (where even if the franchise can't afford it, corporate can provide low to no interest loans to supply the up-front costs for that ad space), I support logo signs. Beyond that, I do not.

Chains have a significant advantage anyways.  At least here in NY, the minimum level of service/maximum distance needed to be eligible to appear on the sign means that they tend to be dominated by chains.  For example, restaurants are required to serve breakfast, gas stations need to be within three miles (food 6, lodging 9, and attractions 15), etc.

And yes, NY is one of the states that bans the use of logo signs other than Attractions in urban areas.

Quote from: cl94 on November 14, 2014, 11:38:04 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
Many urban areas do not even have tall mast signs that usually appear at most interchanges that we rely on.  This is another factor to consider. 

My hometown was one that had an ordinance against high signs facing the Garden State Parkway after Howard Johnson put theirs up.  The Ramada Inn (now Holiday Inn) could not put up such an assembly when opening in 1974.  So signs like these would help a situation like the Ramada faced (as the GSP is a toll road not ever considering these logo signs) in a big way.

A lot of toll roads do feature logo signs for hotels. For example, NYSTA has logophobia (not wanting to undermine service plazas), even past the last service areas (west of Angola, south of Ramapo, or EB Berkshire Spur). Yet, they typically post logo signs for hotels and attractions, as there are no such facilities present at service areas (unlike much of Europe).

NYSTA posts the logo signs for Attractions/Camping/Lodging and the generic food/gas availability sign at interchanges that have them nearby.

Quote from: cl94 on November 14, 2014, 11:38:04 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
Many urban areas do not even have tall mast signs that usually appear at most interchanges that we rely on.  This is another factor to consider. 

My hometown was one that had an ordinance against high signs facing the Garden State Parkway after Howard Johnson put theirs up.  The Ramada Inn (now Holiday Inn) could not put up such an assembly when opening in 1974.  So signs like these would help a situation like the Ramada faced (as the GSP is a toll road not ever considering these logo signs) in a big way.

A lot of toll roads do feature logo signs for hotels. For example, NYSTA has logophobia (not wanting to undermine service plazas), even past the last service areas (west of Angola, south of Ramapo, or EB Berkshire Spur). Yet, they typically post logo signs for hotels and attractions, as there are no such facilities present at service areas (unlike much of Europe).

Florida the same on the Florida Turnpike as all services are listed regardless of their many plazas on the road itself.  The CFX (the agency that took over for the now defunct OOCEA) does not have service plazas on any of its roadways, but they will not post them on their expressway system which is so ironic.

Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2014, 12:54:18 PM
And yes, NY is one of the states that bans the use of logo signs other than Attractions in urban areas.

That's recent. I just checked GSV and Region 1 took out the logo signs that used to adorn the Northway in Albany County. They were there less than 2 years ago. I distinctly remember the crazy ones for Exits 2 and 4. Still haven't replaced the (incorrect) overheads at Exits 2 (NB) and 6-7 (SB).

Quoting my post from the other thread:

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2014, 05:52:58 PM
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.

Quote from: cl94 on November 14, 2014, 01:15:23 PM

Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2014, 12:54:18 PM
And yes, NY is one of the states that bans the use of logo signs other than Attractions in urban areas.

That's recent. I just checked GSV and Region 1 took out the logo signs that used to adorn the Northway in Albany County. They were there less than 2 years ago. I distinctly remember the crazy ones for Exits 2 and 4. Still haven't replaced the (incorrect) overheads at Exits 2 (NB) and 6-7 (SB).

It's unfortunate that NY is removing them from urban areas while other states (most recently Arizona) are adding them in. NY needs to realize their benefits to both the state and to travelers.  That proves how backwards NY lawmakers are.

Having different opinions from you doesn't make them "backward".

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 14, 2014, 01:58:14 PM

Quote from: cl94 on November 14, 2014, 01:15:23 PM

Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2014, 12:54:18 PM
And yes, NY is one of the states that bans the use of logo signs other than Attractions in urban areas.

That's recent. I just checked GSV and Region 1 took out the logo signs that used to adorn the Northway in Albany County. They were there less than 2 years ago. I distinctly remember the crazy ones for Exits 2 and 4. Still haven't replaced the (incorrect) overheads at Exits 2 (NB) and 6-7 (SB).

It's unfortunate that NY is removing them from urban areas while other states (most recently Arizona) are adding them in. NY needs to realize their benefits to both the state and to travelers.  That proves how backwards NY lawmakers are.

Do not even get me started there.  I cannot agree with you on that one more.  That is a story that needs to be told off of aaroads.

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2014, 02:04:31 PM
Having different opinions from you doesn't make them "backward".

Sure, but they are doing the opposite of most other states by removing them from urban areas rather than adding them in.  The MUTCD has included provisions for logo signs in urban areas since 2000 as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained.  There is nothing to suggest that there wasn't adequate sign spacing on the Northway.  NY urban highways are in a time warp without logo signs.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 14, 2014, 02:19:43 PM
Sure, but they are doing the opposite of most other states by removing them from urban areas rather than adding them in.  The MUTCD has included provisions for logo signs in urban areas since 2000 as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained.  There is nothing to suggest that there wasn't adequate sign spacing on the Northway.  NY urban highways are in a time warp without logo signs.

As a counterexample, I generally don't see those logo signs on urban freeways in California either, much more on rural stretches (i.e. I-80 in Dixon, I-5 south of Stockton).

Quote from: TheStranger on November 14, 2014, 02:29:01 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 14, 2014, 02:19:43 PM
Sure, but they are doing the opposite of most other states by removing them from urban areas rather than adding them in.  The MUTCD has included provisions for logo signs in urban areas since 2000 as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained.  There is nothing to suggest that there wasn't adequate sign spacing on the Northway.  NY urban highways are in a time warp without logo signs.

As a counterexample, I generally don't see those logo signs on urban freeways in California either, much more on rural stretches (i.e. I-80 in Dixon, I-5 south of Stockton).

California has its own state MUTCD, and it probably doesn't include provisions for logo signs in urban areas unlike the national MUTCD.  And as far as I know, California never had them on urban freeways unlike New York who is actually removing them from urban freeways.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 14, 2014, 01:58:14 PM
It's unfortunate that NY is removing them from urban areas while other states (most recently Arizona) are adding them in. NY needs to realize their benefits to both the state and to travelers.  That proves how backwards NY lawmakers are.

First of all, where do you get the idea that "lawmakers" make decisions on things like where signs go?

Secondly, "backward" would be blindly adhering to some manual without using local conditions as a guideline for decision-making.

There are differences between cities in the Northeast and cities in Arizona — urban organization here generally predates automobiles, nevermind interstate highways. We don't have situations where you just bring in water from 500 miles away and open up some empty flat tract of desert where there's plenty of room for a McDonald's at every exit.

While it's less common to have a services cluster at an urban exit in the Northeast, it does happen. Such as: I-90 at Everett Rd. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.681315,-73.788782&spn=0.008763,0.009892&t=m&z=17) in Albany, I-91 at Jennings Rd. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.787467,-72.657326&spn=0.017775,0.019784&t=m&z=16) in Hartford, I-95 at Bartow Ave. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.869132,-73.830754&spn=0.009014,0.009892&t=m&z=17) in the Bronx, and I-76 at City Ave. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.00787,-75.210117&spn=0.00913,0.009892&t=m&z=17) in Philadelphia. All of which are within city limits, offer a combination of at least ten G/F/L services, and allow relatively easy access in all directions.

There may be other compelling reasons not to sign these services (overloading messages in a traffic dense area), but it isn't that they're not there or not accessible.

If it hasn't yet been tried, perhaps the MUTCD could initiate a pilot program for abbreviated services signing practices in selected urban areas–where warranted. I'm thinking of a sort of "services strip"  that could be appended directly below a guide sign. Obviously the number of posted services would have to be limited. I think this approach would avoid the visual clutter of a separate services signing sequence...as well as motorist confusion over which services signs apply to which exit.

Quote from: briantroutman on November 14, 2014, 04:21:45 PM
While it's less common to have a services cluster at an urban exit in the Northeast, it does happen. Such as: I-90 at Everett Rd. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.681315,-73.788782&spn=0.008763,0.009892&t=m&z=17) in Albany

And at I-87 exits 2 and 4 (Wolf Rd) a short distance away. All of these actually had logo signs at one point. Shame that they got taken out, because they were popular with travelers.

I don't recall seeing logo signs in other cities around here, and I've only been in the Albany area for the past six months, so I don't know anything about what was there.  Street view, even the oldest years, doesn't show anything but the generic symbol signs that are still there.  But if Albany really was the only city with them, it's possible they weren't supposed to be there in the first place.  NYSDOT isn't supposed to be consistently inconsistent, but until recently the Main Office didn't care to enforce the rules as much as they do now.

Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2014, 10:36:14 PM
I don't recall seeing logo signs in other cities around here, and I've only been in the Albany area for the past six months, so I don't know anything about what was there.  Street view, even the oldest years, doesn't show anything but the generic symbol signs that are still there.  But if Albany really was the only city with them, it's possible they weren't supposed to be there in the first place.  NYSDOT isn't supposed to be consistently inconsistent, but until recently the Main Office didn't care to enforce the rules as much as they do now.

I checked and I was wrong for that exit. I will note that Exit 6 had a full set of logo signs before the SPUIfication.

Quote from: briantroutman on November 14, 2014, 04:21:45 PM
If it hasn't yet been tried, perhaps the MUTCD could initiate a pilot program for abbreviated services signing practices in selected urban areas–where warranted. I'm thinking of a sort of "services strip"  that could be appended directly below a guide sign. Obviously the number of posted services would have to be limited. I think this approach would avoid the visual clutter of a separate services signing sequence...as well as motorist confusion over which services signs apply to which exit.

The flaw with that idea is that adding logo strips to below the guide signs could increase the sign clutter in a different way...by adding too much info to one sign display (this is part of the reason why the MUTCD says only one destination city on guide signs).

West Monroe & Monroe just had some installed last year for the following exits:

West Monroe:  exit 112-Well Rd., exit 113-Downing Pines Rd., exit 114-Thomas Rd.

Monroe:  exit 117B-Texas St./18th St. (WB only), exit 120-Garrett Rd./Pecanland Mall

Quote from: riiga on November 13, 2014, 01:55:20 PM
In strictly urban areas such as a motorway through downtown, I'm against their use since it only adds to the clutter, and you shouldn't encourage people to stop where there's already such a high AADT. In semi-urban or rural areas though they're very useful, mostly at exits. In Sweden we've been using them for at least 20 years along motorways and major roads, and they're very useful when taking a break or you need to refuel your car.

Distance example (http://goo.gl/maps/RKL9q) and at exit example (http://goo.gl/maps/rDVa5) (not the same location as first example).

These are not the same thing as U.S. logo signage (full disclosure: I have driven a lot in Sweden and speak the language fluently).

These are more analogous to the signage that one would see approaching a toll road service plaza (such "full service" rest stops with food and fuel are almost unknown in the U.S. except on motorways where a toll is charged - though they can be found on "free" motorways in some Canadian provinces).

Quote from: cl94 on November 14, 2014, 11:38:04 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
Many urban areas do not even have tall mast signs that usually appear at most interchanges that we rely on.  This is another factor to consider. 

My hometown was one that had an ordinance against high signs facing the Garden State Parkway after Howard Johnson put theirs up.  The Ramada Inn (now Holiday Inn) could not put up such an assembly when opening in 1974.  So signs like these would help a situation like the Ramada faced (as the GSP is a toll road not ever considering these logo signs) in a big way.

A lot of toll roads do feature logo signs for hotels. For example, NYSTA has logophobia (not wanting to undermine service plazas), even past the last service areas (west of Angola, south of Ramapo, or EB Berkshire Spur). Yet, they typically post logo signs for hotels and attractions, as there are no such facilities present at service areas (unlike much of Europe).

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority has similar practices, especially on the Turnpike (not sure if it holds true on all of the Garden State Parkway, since I have not driven all of it).

I am very much in favor of logo signage on all (or very nearly all) freeways, be they toll roads or "free" roads. 

Only exception - I might be persuaded that they should not be used in core areas of large cities.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 15, 2014, 08:50:02 PM
I am very much in favor of logo signage on all (or very nearly all) freeways, be they toll roads or "free" roads. 

Only exception - I might be persuaded that they should not be used in core areas of large cities.

In a lot of cases, they simply don't fit.  There are miles of highway here where they'd need to be on gantries or not at all.

In a handful of years, when signs can reliably be designed around laggards catching up and getting smartphones or nav systems, this conversation is going to seem quaint.   

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 15, 2014, 08:42:42 PM
These are not the same thing as U.S. logo signage (full disclosure: I have driven a lot in Sweden and speak the language fluently).

These are more analogous to the signage that one would see approaching a toll road service plaza (such "full service" rest stops with food and fuel are almost unknown in the U.S. except on motorways where a toll is charged - though they can be found on "free" motorways in some Canadian provinces).

True, but they serve the same function, namely informing drivers of nearby services using logos and placing them in a category. The reason we don't use them more here is that our cities aren't built around the car in the same way. The US often has a large concentration of various services, like gas and food near major intersections in urban and suburban areas, while in Sweden and most of Europe those are confined to major national roads, or there's a gas station at most which hardly requires extensive logo signing near a major intersection.

riiga: how would it work in Sweden where there are multiple exits in quick succession, each with different brands available?

I am also in favor of using the logo signs in urban areas.  But I would take exception in areas where there are many closely spaced exits, as in many downtown areas.  The logo sign may just add to the clutter.  Plus, in many downtowns, there are few if any gas stations, hotels are very pricey, and restaurants tend to also be pricey and may not have easy parking.

But general urban areas like Phoenix, I don't believe that this is a problem near most highway exits, as even the urban parts of town (outside of Downtown) have a relatively suburban feel and aren't like Manhattan or the Chicago Loop.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 15, 2014, 09:17:02 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 15, 2014, 08:50:02 PM
I am very much in favor of logo signage on all (or very nearly all) freeways, be they toll roads or "free" roads. 

Only exception - I might be persuaded that they should not be used in core areas of large cities.

In a lot of cases, they simply don't fit.  There are miles of highway here where they'd need to be on gantries or not at all.

In a handful of years, when signs can reliably be designed around laggards catching up and getting smartphones or nav systems, this conversation is going to seem quaint.

At a significant number of interchanges along (the relatively few) freeways in the District of Columbia, there is little or nothing in the way of motorist services. 

One significant exception is Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. east of D.C. 295.

Sorry to bump an old thread, but just as an update, as of May 2016, ADOT has actually recently installed more logo signs a bit closer to Downtown Phoenix on I-10 and I-17, as well as SR 143.  ADOT must have really good engineers that were able to fit these logo signs without conflicting with other signs.  Prior to May 2016, they were not installed on I-10 from 35th Avenue to Baseline Road, I-17 south of Dunlap, nor on SR 143.

Also, the City of Glendale has recommended to ADOT to expand the urban logo sign program to non-freeway state-maintained roads, specifically along US 60 Grand Avenue.  Currently, logo sign installation for non-freeway state roads remains only in rural areas.

I don't mind them in urban areas. Didn't realize until recently that other metro areas besides Phoenix and Tucson have them on their highways.

I don't mind service logo signs in urban areas if the business is immediately off the highway.  But advertising businesses that are three or four stoplights away from the exit is not really helpful.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on August 09, 2016, 03:04:57 PM
I don't mind them in urban areas. Didn't realize until recently that other metro areas besides Phoenix and Tucson have them on their highways.

As a general rule, Sun Belt states and other states of rapid population growth (California being the major exception) are more likely to have logo signs in major urban areas, since their freeways are generally newer with wider shoulders and less densely spaced exits.  Examples of such cities include Atlanta, Orlando, Denver, Las Vegas, and most major cities in Texas, among others.

One thing that bothers me is why logo signs won't be installed on Albuquerque freeways.  If Phoenix and Tucson can have them, I don't see why Albuquerque can't; I think there is ample space for logo signs on most of Albuquerque's freeways with the possible exception of I-25 near Downtown.