What’s Up With The Marquee Sign

[gforce1994]

As I was driving into KI today, I saw markers all around the Marquee Sign (sprays nearby and on its electrical boxes).

Furthermore, there are sprays on the berm 20 yards away. Im curious if they’re going to relocate or replace the marquee. Thoughts?

[BeeastFarmer]

I think you are hyperfocused on spray paint.  Enjoy the park for what it is and don't worry about tommorow because today has enough to enjoy at Kings Island.

[CoasterJack]

I noticed this as well. While I couldn't exactly see them relocating or replacing the sign, especially right now, my theory is...

They're doing parking lot work this off season to fix the flow lanes into the rows, and they're just marking the electrical to the sign to avoid confusion.

Also if anyone says ODOT required them to take it down as a distraction, if I'm driving by on the highway, I'm already gonna be looking at the park regardless of the sign, so I see this as highly unlikely.

[gforce1994]

I’m thinking they’re redesigning the drop off lot. Currently lot and park traffic are mixed, and as seen last year and this year a car dropping off a passenger at KI  likely ends up stuck in the traffic heading directly to the park and that’s a problem.

[gforce1994]

[BB1]

I'm not going to lie, it's probably for some off season work on an electrical line or to renovate the whole parking lot (If KI has the money/time to do as we desperately need it.). I wouldn't hyperimpose on a lot of these markings, we already saw that going deep on some can lead to speculation about a water line system. This could even be a part of that renovation as they would need to show where the lines run if they're doing such a project. 

I personally would ask the Dippin' Dots guy for some clarification, but he's been referring me to Pepe Silvia recently....

[Gabe]

17 hours ago, CoasterJack said:

I noticed this as well. While I couldn't exactly see them relocating or replacing the sign, especially right now, my theory is...

They're doing parking lot work this off season to fix the flow lanes into the rows, and they're just marking the electrical to the sign to avoid confusion.

Also if anyone says ODOT required them to take it down as a distraction, if I'm driving by on the highway, I'm already gonna be looking at the park regardless of the sign, so I see this as highly unlikely.

ODOT has no authority to make them remove the sign, since it is an on-premise sign.  About the only thing ODOT can do is to ask KI to turn down the brightness at night, which they likely do anyway.

[disco2000]

3 hours ago, Gabe said:

ODOT has no authority to make them remove the sign, since it is an on-premise sign.  About the only thing ODOT can do is to ask KI to turn down the brightness at night, which they likely do anyway.

Actually ODOT has authority under ORC Chapter 5501-2-2-03 (A) -  Restrictions on outdoor advertising adjacent to the interstate, federal aid primary, and national highway systems: all advertising devices erected or maintained within six hundred sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way and visible from the main traveled way.  The KI sign is 245 feet away from the nearest edge of the ODOT right-of-way.  There is a lot more to that statute that would fill pages here that I am not going to copy it here, but there are zoning laws, sizes, etc. that all come into play, along with variances as well.  But to say that ODOT has no authority regarding that sign is inaccurate.

And it is not uncommon for ODOT or any other local jurisdiction to require changes to existing signage based on updated regulations, even if the sign is already existing and has been for years.  Sometimes they fight to get it grandfathered in; other times they are not successful.   I remember many years ago a local ice cream shop, Zip Dip, fought to keep their existing signage where it was because it was in violation of the code by like 2 feet something.

[gforce1994]

Plus, wasn’t the current marquee built after the other one got hit by a wind event during the Paramount years?

I’m asking that because if they got a new one, they could attach an LED screen.

[jsus]

57 minutes ago, gforce1994 said:

I’m asking that because if they got a new one, they could attach an LED screen.

How would that differ from the one currently in place?  Or are you referring to a different sign?

 

Source: https://goo.gl/maps/MSw9Fk4kZeBZijCp7

[gforce1994]

22 minutes ago, jsus said:

How would that differ from the one currently in place?  Or are you referring to a different sign?

 

Source: https://goo.gl/maps/MSw9Fk4kZeBZijCp7

If they got a new one, they can build an LED screen. You could play videos on it.

[jsus]

But that is an LED matrix display...

[CoasterJack]

1 hour ago, gforce1994 said:

If they got a new one, they can build an LED screen. You could play videos on it.

The they added an LED sign a few years back, they sometimes display animations.

Source: https://themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69924&start=20

 

P.S. There's multiple threads talking about when they did all this: https://KICentral.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29050-kings-island-is-getting-a-marquee-sign-upgrade/

[gforce1994]

1 hour ago, CoasterJack said:

The they added an LED sign a few years back, they sometimes display animations.

Source: https://themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69924&start=20

 

P.S. There's multiple threads talking about when they did all this: https://KICentral.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29050-kings-island-is-getting-a-marquee-sign-upgrade/

Technology has rapidly advanced since 2013-2014.

[jsus]

1 hour ago, gforce1994 said:

Technology has rapidly advanced since 2013-2014.

But what are you suggesting that you know the current display is incapable of?

[Gabe]

22 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Actually ODOT has authority under ORC Chapter 5501-2-2-03 (A) -  Restrictions on outdoor advertising adjacent to the interstate, federal aid primary, and national highway systems: all advertising devices erected or maintained within six hundred sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way and visible from the main traveled way.  The KI sign is 245 feet away from the nearest edge of the ODOT right-of-way.  There is a lot more to that statute that would fill pages here that I am not going to copy it here, but there are zoning laws, sizes, etc. that all come into play, along with variances as well.  But to say that ODOT has no authority regarding that sign is inaccurate.

And it is not uncommon for ODOT or any other local jurisdiction to require changes to existing signage based on updated regulations, even if the sign is already existing and has been for years.  Sometimes they fight to get it grandfathered in; other times they are not successful.   I remember many years ago a local ice cream shop, Zip Dip, fought to keep their existing signage where it was because it was in violation of the code by like 2 feet something.

That's true for signs that are outside the ROW but AREN'T on premise.  On premise signs are exempted from the Highway Beautification Act (which is what all state laws emulate).   I will reiterate-ODOT has NO authority to dictate what happens to the sign.  They did add the big LED panel a couple of years ago, but otherwise the sign is the same one that Paramount erected. Below is the applicable law.  No state has a bonus agreement with the Feds (which provided for more $ for enforcement in exchange for more stringent regulations.)

 

23 CFR § 750.709 - On-property or on-premise advertising.

• CFR

prev | next

§ 750.709 On-property or on-premise advertising.

(a) A sign which consists solely of the name of the establishment or which identifies the establishment's principal or accessory products or services offered on the property is an on-property sign.

(b) When a sign consists principally of brand name or trade name advertising and the product or service advertised is only incidental to the principal activity, or if it brings rental income to the property owner, it shall be considered the business of outdoor advertising and not an on-property sign.

(c) A sale or lease sign which also advertises any product or service not conducted upon and unrelated to the business or selling or leasing the land on which the sign is located is not an on-property sign.

(d) Signs are exempt from control under 23 U.S.C. 131 if they solely advertise the sale or lease of property on which they are located or advertise activities conducted on the property on which they are located. These signs are subject to regulation (subpart A, part 750, chapter I, 23 CFR) in those States which have executed a bonus agreement, 23 U.S.C. 131(j). State laws or regulations shall contain criteria for determining exemptions. These criteria may include:

(1) A property test for determining whether a sign is located on the same property as the activity or property advertised; and

(2) A purpose test for determining whether a sign has as its sole purpose the identification of the activity located on the property or its products or services, or the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is located.

(3) The criteria must be sufficiently specific to curb attempts to improperly qualify outdoor advertising as “on-property” signs, such as signs on narrow strips of land contiguous to the advertised activity when the purpose is clearly to circumvent 23 U.S.C. 131.

[Shaggy]

I remember park Reps spoke at an ACE event during the Paramount years and revealed they were restricted from displaying certain moving images on the (then) new sign.  For instance, they could not show ride footage and/or commercials.  The issue was raised based on the concerns that local authorities (I assume ODOT) had with it affecting traffic flow. I would assume that still plays into what they show, and the time each image spends on the screen.

[gforce1994]

7 hours ago, Gabe said:

That's true for signs that are outside the ROW but AREN'T on premise.  On premise signs are exempted from the Highway Beautification Act (which is what all state laws emulate).   I will reiterate-ODOT has NO authority to dictate what happens to the sign.  They did add the big LED panel a couple of years ago, but otherwise the sign is the same one that Paramount erected. Below is the applicable law.  No state has a bonus agreement with the Feds (which provided for more $ for enforcement in exchange for more stringent regulations.)

 

23 CFR § 750.709 - On-property or on-premise advertising.

• CFR

prev | next

§ 750.709 On-property or on-premise advertising.

(a) A sign which consists solely of the name of the establishment or which identifies the establishment's principal or accessory products or services offered on the property is an on-property sign.

(b) When a sign consists principally of brand name or trade name advertising and the product or service advertised is only incidental to the principal activity, or if it brings rental income to the property owner, it shall be considered the business of outdoor advertising and not an on-property sign.

(c) A sale or lease sign which also advertises any product or service not conducted upon and unrelated to the business or selling or leasing the land on which the sign is located is not an on-property sign.

(d) Signs are exempt from control under 23 U.S.C. 131 if they solely advertise the sale or lease of property on which they are located or advertise activities conducted on the property on which they are located. These signs are subject to regulation (subpart A, part 750, chapter I, 23 CFR) in those States which have executed a bonus agreement, 23 U.S.C. 131(j). State laws or regulations shall contain criteria for determining exemptions. These criteria may include:

(1) A property test for determining whether a sign is located on the same property as the activity or property advertised; and

(2) A purpose test for determining whether a sign has as its sole purpose the identification of the activity located on the property or its products or services, or the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is located.

(3) The criteria must be sufficiently specific to curb attempts to improperly qualify outdoor advertising as “on-property” signs, such as signs on narrow strips of land contiguous to the advertised activity when the purpose is clearly to circumvent 23 U.S.C. 131.

23 CFR § 750.110 - State regulations.

• CFR

prev next

§ 750.110 State regulations.

A State may elect to prohibit signs permissible under the standards in this part without forfeiting its rights to any benefits provided for in the act.

[Gabe]

Correct, but Ohio has not done that (nor has any state I know of).  Business owners want to be able to control their signs.  Here in Indy, some examples that come to mind of signs that otherwise wouldn't be permissible are the Indiana Grand sign in Anderson off I 69 and the Nestle Quick bunny sign outside the Nestle plant also off 69 in Anderson.  Eventually, I'd love KI to get a type of sign featured in Back to the Future 2 haha.  Imagine the possibilities! The Banshee clawing at you, etc. ha.

[Dane]

To tag onto what Shaggy said, when the marquee was replaced out they actually opted for the better hardware and software system at the time. After install, they were then told of different regulations on what they couldn't flash, show video, animate, etc etc and had to draw back a lot of the cool stuff the sign could do.

 

But yet there is an organization on I-75 that sign gives you epilepsy as you drive past it.

[Dj325]

Maybe they could do something for the park's 50th anniversary in 2022? They could have a new sign that could be the shape/outline of the Eiffel Tower. I COULD maybe draw to show you what I mean. Just a thought.

[Gabe]

17 hours ago, Dane said:

To tag onto what Shaggy said, when the marquee was replaced out they actually opted for the better hardware and software system at the time. After install, they were then told of different regulations on what they couldn't flash, show video, animate, etc etc and had to draw back a lot of the cool stuff the sign could do.

 

But yet there is an organization on I-75 that sign gives you epilepsy as you drive past it.

Yep; even on premise signs have to be under a certain lumen at night, must display each message for 8-10 seconds and can't have lots of animations.  Congress hasn't updated the Highway Beautification Act to reflect electronic signs, leaving it to the states and locals to handle.  Luckily, the big companies have banded together to put forth standards of their own that others have abided by.  If anything, I'd like to see them with a bigger LED panel.  

[gforce1994]

2 hours ago, Gabe said:

Yep; even on premise signs have to be under a certain lumen at night, must display each message for 8-10 seconds and can't have lots of animations.  Congress hasn't updated the Highway Beautification Act to reflect electronic signs, leaving it to the states and locals to handle.  Luckily, the big companies have banded together to put forth standards of their own that others have abided by.  If anything, I'd like to see them with a bigger LED panel.  

Businesses or ODOT?

 

[Gabe]

Used to be on premise signs could do anything.  since the advent of electronic signs, the industry and the state highway departments have enacted a set of standards applicable to electronic signs. Eventually, I'd imagine KI will redo their sign to allow for a bigger led panel.