How Much Information Can You Process?
Contributed by Wes Dean
On January 2, 2008, the FHWA published a Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA) to the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977). The NPA, as published, contains an extensive number of proposed changes, perhaps more than have been proposed in any previous edition of the MUTCD. Because of this vast number, this article is going to focus on two of the most discussed and debated topics related to logo or specific service signing: “Rollover logo signing” and dual logos.
Currently the MUTCD includes specific service signing for six categories: GAS, FOOD, LODGING, CAMPING, ATTRACTIONS, and 24 HOUR PHARMACIES. However, only four background signs are allowed on any one approach at any given interchange. There can be combinations of service categories on any sign, but what this amounts to is four background signs with up to six logo panels each for any given approach at an interchange. The traditional way of looking at this, from a traffic engineer’s perspective and the MUTCD, is that once you have six logo panels for any service the next interested business in that category goes on some kind of waiting list.
In the last few years, with the federal fuel tax collections staying flat and fuel, maintenance, and construction costs skyrocketing, State DOT’s and other entities have been viewing things from a different perspective. Adding to this change of perspective is the growing awareness of the value of public roadways’ right-of –way and its ability to be a revenue source when coupled with the dwindling federal resources.
From my perspective at the Mississippi Department of Transportation, we started this type transition when we renegotiated our Logo signing program in 2004. In 1993, when our State program was initially privatized, the goal was to have a self-sustaining program that was marketed and maintained with an impeccable degree of customer satisfaction. In 2004, with the above mentioned trends in mind, the MDOT administration renegotiated the logo contract to keep the same high standards but to move forward with revenue generation in mind. From my discussions with State Traffic Engineers from around the Country, this is a growing trend with Logo signing programs.
How does this tie in with rollover signing? Many States now look at each interchange approach as having twenty-four openings for Logo signs regardless of category. From the traffic engineer’s perspective it’s, “How do we keep this from getting out of control?”
The NPA has language that limits the signing for one category to a maximum of two signs per interchange approach. The NPA still holds to no more than four background signs per approach. To summarize, while changes are happening, the NPA language controls the expansion. The NCUTCD and MISA support this amendment.
Dual logos have also been a much debated issue within the NCUTCD. As more and more businesses of this type (i.e. BP/ KFC, Chevron/Taco Bell, etc.) have appeared in the last decade, the challenge has been how to effectively sign these to give the establishment the best exposure but not confuse or jeopardize the decision making ability of the motorist.
The NPA supports and has language allowing dual logos for two food or a gas / food panel. There has been some research conducted, but in the opinion of the NCUTCD, not enough to quantify a definitive ruling on this issue. The NCUTCD disagreed with the NPA because of, among several issues, the confusion over which background sign a gas/food panel should be displayed on. The NCUTCD has proposed language to allow dual logos for only a two food combination. MISA supports the NCUTCD proposal.
Where Specific Service Signing is going and how it will expand will be the subject of much debate before this version of the MUTCD is published and long afterward. From my perspective, I think it will expand not only on ground-mounted static signs, but also to the onboard systems in our vehicles. To be continued. . . . .
Return to Front Page |
