Picture the driver navigating this intersection, kids being a distraction, cell phone ringing, a cup of coffee in one hand, and an LED sign brighter than everything else changing from one message to another:
How about at night? Remember: this sign is changing all the time:
The purpose of this sign’s being brighter than everything else around it, day or night, is to get you to look at it, and to gaze at it while it changes to a different message. Why else would they make them that way?
An Eastwood neighbor tells us about what’s being voted on at the planning commission meeting this Monday, July 20 at 6:00 pm in City Hall:
I just want to make sure everyone is aware of what is being presented to the Planning Commission on Monday night….
The proposed sign would be mounted on the James Street side of the building, well to the east side of the structure (I believe this is near to the Hickok intersection) perpendicular to the building. The term is ‘projecting sign,’ in that it physically projects out from the building. It would be nearly 17 feet off the ground and would be 5 feet nine inches wide by 4 feet tall. The top half would be an Walgreen’s sign and the bottom half would be an LED sign. The LED sign would have changing copy.
I hope to see some people there to express their opinions.
The following is based on and quotes a study conducted for the Federal Highway Administration: Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs, Prepared by Jerry Wachtel, CPE, President, The Veridian Group, Inc., Berkeley, California, April, 2009.
This year in the Netherlands, guidelines have been developed to be used by the Dutch Ministry of Transport. The guidelines will be initially applied to motorways, with later extension to other roads in The Netherlands.
The following are some of the recommendations resulting from recent studies:
- There should be no information that actively attracts attention; this includes no moving objects, no LCD or LED screens, and no moving or changing pictures or images.
- No distractions should be permitted at merges, exits and entrances, close to road signs or in curves…
After a moratorium period, the Flowery Branch (Georgia) City Council, on June 4, 2008, amended Article 24 (“Signs”) of its Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 348-7) to define and regulate CEVMS. Based on its review of the literature (several articles were cited), the language of the ordinance, in Section 1, offered the City’s rationale for its actions, described as its findings. Those findings read, in part:
Changeable electronic variable message signs, (CEVMS) … have been shown to create possible threats to public safety. Such signs are erected for the purpose of trying to hold the attention of motorists by changing messages and pictures for short durations using a series of bright, colorful images produced mainly via LED (light emitting diode) technologies. Brightly lit signs that change messages every few seconds compel motorists to notice them, and they lure the attention of motorists away from what is happening on the road and onto the sign. Such signs pose safety threats because if they attract a motorist’s attention, the motorist will look at the sign and not at the road. (CEVMS) are also a threat to public safety because of their brightness, making them visible from great distances. Due to their nature of brightness and changing displays, changeable electronic variable message signs are more distracting than signs which do not vary the message. …
Unless otherwise regulated, such displays can be extremely bright since they are designed to be visible in bright sunlight and at night. Furthermore, the human eye is drawn to them far more strongly than to traditional illuminated signs. Such electronic LED displays can be seen from as far away as six-tenths of a mile, making them distracting. It takes a minimum of six seconds to comprehend the message on an electronic sign, which is three times the safe period for driver distraction.
So why would we want a huge LED blade sign jutting out from the side of the Walgreens?
This sign is NOT a “deal-breaker.” We have already been assured by Walgreens’ corporate office (back in May) that they are moving in.
If the reasoning for your opposition of the sign is the distraction then you better shut down the Palace Theater as their marquee is absolutely blinding at night when it is lit up – definitely an accident waiting to happen. Interesting point – maybe I will e-mail this suggestion to the planning board since I will not be going as it seems you are ready to blast Walgreens out of the water. FYI – your “private ” Google group is far from private as any G-Mail user can set up an alert to get e-mailed those posts without joining ( I note most do not have an G-Mail address so may not be aware of that feature).. All I can say is that I have lived in Eastwood for over 10 years now and when we moved here James St was thriving with many restaurants – now the only 2 original restaurants remain – Taste of Philadelphia ( although relocated) and Lees Jade Garden and the rest has deteriorated under the watchful eye of this group-this should send a red flag but obviously people in this group prefer to live in the past and ignore reality. I consider James St the new Butternut St area in the making.
There are many reasons that the James Street Corridor has been deteriorating. The reason started 15 years ago when they began to demolish old buildings to build parking lots in front of the new box buildings to make them more convenient for drivers…this extended the roadway into what used to be street fronted buildings….meaning there was no more public and private space distinction anymore…it all became public. The parking lots started to deteriorate and therefore, this became yet another form of “blight.” This is in fact is how Butternut became the way it is today. A population decline of 30,000 from Central New York and from the core of the city to the outer suburbs exacerbated the problem. Housing stock was bought up by absentee landlords and two city administrations did nothing to stem the tide of the deterioration and disinvestment of the neighborhoods over two decades. The loss of manufacturing jobs also contributed as well as the replacement of these jobs with service jobs (the Carousel promised increase real estate values on the north side and all kinds of riches when it was built in the early 1990s…the strip joints moved in on North Salina Street instead). So, the public memory is short and quite frankly we are tired of being the scapegoats simply because we stepped out and tried to stop the decay of allowing cheaply built boxes that created blight after a few years (after the owners made their profit). We didn’t want another Butternut Street but the entropy is nearly impossible (you are part of the entropy that we have to deal with on a daily basis). Almost all of the land owners that own property on James Street are absentee land owners (they live in other states or cities). Check the tax maps on the County Real Property site. These are land owners (opportunists…because they know the potential here but do not want to wait for the long term benefits that would increase their profits) who are sitting on the right deal to come along…they do not intend to improve the properties because then they would have to pay higher taxes. If you want to lease, that is alright, but you have to pay to improve the property. Without venture capital…aint gonna happen. The city does what they can to enforce the code, but find that it is a never ending battle…because they always have to come back. The city has dumped millions of dollars into North Salina St. and under $500,000 on James Street over the past two decades. The proposed LED light will be even brighter than the Palace Theater marquis and fortunately, the Palace doesn’t “Flash” the marquis or it too would be in violation of the sign code. The sign is not permitted. This single developer has asked for 11 waivers to the Zoning Code for a 14,000 sf building. The Walmart in Lockport got 14 waivers and variances for a 150,000 sf building. There is a reason for a zoning ordinance…to protect health, safety and welfare of the public. Zoning codes are not for providing lassez faire development by muti-million dollar corporations…letting them do anything they want.
I forgot to add that Pomco (the insurance company) bought up about two blocks and well, what can I say…they too all come from out of town to work in offices and park in all of the off street parking spaces. Though the buildings are nice, the offices do not produce revenue like retail, restaurants and the like. Maybe you can speak to Mr. Pomco about your restaurants.
Well – time will tell as I will be e-mailing the Planning Board with the details shortly- to say that LED signs are brighter than incandescent bulbs is questionable to say the least. As I have posted – I have been seeing the posts on the “private” group using g-mail alerts and it shows a concerted effort to derail the Walgreens project. As for the statement about about multi-million corporation basically having their way without your control -that isa ironic as a number of your group have been spotted by a couple of my neighbors ( who I trust immensely) having meals with and being quite chummy with management of the 2 local Rite Aids – coincidence – perhaps but your group seems well funded so what is one to think. The reality of how James St has gone downhill speaks volumes about the obstructionist views of your group.
incandecent bulbs are not signs
What private group would that be?
I am sorry…but I don’t know about the Rite Aid and chummy manangement…not sure what you are talking about. I am a Professional Urban Planner certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. I don’t form opinions…I research the facts. The walkable eastwood group is not funded at all. This is grassroots and we are not obstructionists. We want the law enforced is all. If we were funded, we would invest and start our own Eastwood Businesses. And the LED light, though it will be regulated as to its brightness, will in fact be “brighter” than an incandecsent light. That is the point of using them. The law says that you can’t have any bright lights near (especially RED) the same color as Traffic Regulatory Devices that would pose a traffic hazard, confuse or compromise the primary task of driving. It is as simple as that. The Eastwood neighborhood didn’t make this stuff up. The Federal Highway Administration, the New York State DOT, the County DOT and the City all have laws on the books regarding this. There is a study as we speak that is being conducted to make the final determination (though there is a sufficient amount of information already) to show that LED reader boards pose serious traffic safety hazards, especially with elderly people….Walgreens primary target market. You seem so angry and the blame shifting is interesting to say the least. Where is that really coming from? When you write to the Planning Commission, remember, they have to base their decision on the FACTS and will not consider “opinions” since the courts will reverse their decision if they do. So, you might want to do some research about the facts before you do send them a letter. Really, where is this anger coming from?
Ted, I wrote you a long email the other day thanking you for the interest you take in Eastwood and for participating in this group. I told you I was glad to see another view on this site, as it’s great for sparking a good discussion.
However, when I sent the email, it came back undeliverable. As it turns out, you have used a bogus email address, so I am unable to converse with you privately. You know who I am, but nobody gets to know who you are. Does this mean that you are not sure enough of your opinions, or your facts, to be anything more than anonymous?
Given the intensity of the conversation, I have to respectfully request that you use a real email address. Nobody but the administrator of this website – and that would be me – ever gets to see it. I have provided a public forum for discussion, at great expense in time and even a bit of money. Please have some respect for the effort everyone is putting into this and provide a real email address with your next post, or simply contact me through the contact form on this site.
Thank you.
Thanks Maureen…
This just shows my suspicions are correct. I mean really- why do signs use LED’s – hmmm – perhaps for energy efficiency ( can you say GREEN)- why do MANY new traffic signals use LED’s ( the ones you compare this sign against)- energy efficiency and durability. You quote DOT studies yet massive multi message billboards are allowed by highways and even James St so what does this point to – financial support from a competitor. I e-mailed my observations through the Mayor’s office as the Planning board strangely has no direct e-mail so I’ll see what happens. I know myself and other neighbors have been solicited about out of state interests purchasing our properties so if this obstructionism continues I may sell out and move to a different area of the City ( of which I am a LIFE LONG RESIDENT) as I will not see the area I live in turned into Butternut St.
Lonnie…..
Aaron informed me of the problem and I do not understand the problem unless it was glitch in G-mail or maybe this forum software got it wrong. I tried sending e-mail to the address I provided and it went through so I know the address I provided here was legitimate as I will not hide behind a phony address so you may want to try and resend it.
Ted:
Energy efficiency may be part of it…but truly it is low cost advertising that attracts “attention” because of its brightness.
Again, what suspicions…you are not being very clear. I also want to know why you are so angry.
Meanwhile, here is a sign industry website that talks about all of the benefits of LED reader boards. The FHWA, Thruway, etc. all use Changeable Electronic Variable Message Boards to alert of Emergencies or Road Conditions. Entirely different content. They will not allow Commercial Off-Premise advertising within 650 feet of Primary Highways or Some Major Interstates because of the potential hazards to drivers. Traffic Regulatory Devices are entirely different content than a commercial advertisement “Molsons 12.99/12PK”
http://www.signindustry.com/led/articles/2008-04-15-LB-Hersheys_How_Sweet_it_Is_Signage_Spectacular_Times_Square.php3
One more time…I want to know why you are so angry.
Oh…wait. I get it. You think that we work for Rite Aid…That is Hilarious!!!!
Ted:
I am a public transportation agency employee. As a private citizen with credentials, I simply assist the neighborhood (public) in urban planning issues because I care about turning James Street into something better than what it is. However, the forces that are beating down on James Street are the exact same ones that won over on Butternut Street. I guess you hadn’t lived in Syracuse long enough to see what happened there. It all started with a Burger King…then a Fays Drug Store. They tore down the building across the street and put in a Rite Aid. Then Fays moved across from where they were, tore down the building there and built a BIGGER Fays that became an Eckerds, and the Rite Aid tore down their store and built a BIGGER Rite Aid….then a Kentucky Fried Chicken, then came a Dollar Store in the old Fays, then came all of the fast food and corporate retail at the old Peter’s Market or what ever that market is over there…that is how it started….Single Purpose Medium Formats turning into Large Formats, corporate chains and fast food franchises and tearing out the traditional urban fabric building parking lots in front (instead of the traditional rear and alley ways) so that people could drive there instead of walk there. Butternut Street used to be a thriving Italian neighborhood before all of that began. We are trying to prevent the same thing from happening on James Street. We don’t prefer Single-Purpose Single-Uses in the mixed use tradtional style of say the NEW Armory Square…there has just been no incentives in Eastwood (the city sat on their hands and hoped they would come) and so that is why the neighborhood is on the edge of decline…but it can turn around and it is not the Walgreens that is going to do it. It is going to be grassroots citizens working together toward that vision…taking a stand against turning James Street into another Butternut Street. So I hope that you can find some common ground in that.
Where to start ?? Someone is extremely confused as to the intent of the walkeastwood group. Had they been “lurking” the site for any length of time and reading it with a normal degree of comprehension, this person’s perspective I think would be totally different than what has been indicated by him.
I grew up in Eastwood specifically in the 50′s & 60′s, not somewhere in the area.
I believe Walkeastwood does not support single purpose / single use buildings.
I believe Walkeastwood is trying to be instrumental in preventing what happened on Butternut St from happening on James St.
I believe the City sat on their hands because they did not have any sort of plan to be able to more aggressively show potential developers what the City’s vision of what they wanted to have for Eastwood.
I believe that the City does not know how to approach potential developers for considering doing some redevelopment in sections of the City such as Eastwood. If they did know how to do this, I believe that more redevelopment would be seen around the city. As i understand it, Armory Square has been a huge flop.
I believe that an industry associated website would point out the advantages of their product, and do so without mentioning the disadvantages, pitfalls, and dangers that their product might have.
I believe that the Palace Theatre marquee sits back considerably further than the wall of the Walgreen’s building and it does not protrude out to within a foot or so of the curb and is not located where it blocks or confuses the view of traffic control devices near it.
I believe that it is a very slippery slope one gets on when they make unsubstantiated accusations.
I believe that someone needs to re-read these posts to properly understand the motives and goals of this group.
Frank Coon
One slight thing I’d mention on the diagrams presented – there’s only one lane going straight through that light. The turn lane to Grant doesn’t form until after the light; parallel parking is allowed up to it.
Isn’t that sign mounted on the non-Walgreens building – the “oops” building when the contractor demolished one too many? Seems odd… and weird to be actually _in_ the intersection. Even Walgreens stores with the massive signage still have it on the corners, not in the middle of an intersection.