Logo signs in urban areas - for or against?

[Pink Jazz]

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.

[Zeffy]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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

[briantroutman]

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.

[vdeane]

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).

[riiga]

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 and at exit example (not the same location as first example).

[jeffandnicole]

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.

Section 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.

[Pink Jazz]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[adventurernumber1]

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. 

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[cl94]

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).

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[mtantillo]

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.

[Brian556]

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.

[Brandon]

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).

Street View.

[Revive 755]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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).

Street View.

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. 

[cl94]

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).

Street View.

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.

[corco]

I favor logo signs, as long as they aren't a means for generating revenue. I'll point to my previous post 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.

[Brandon]

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).

Street View.

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.