On November 2, Jon Campbell , the Albany correspondent for Gannet, reported in the Poughkeepsie Journal under the byline Politics on the Hudson on an exciting new tourist development in our dysfunctional state.  According to his report, Cuomo had the Department of Transportation (DOT) install “514 highway signs touting its tourism programs despite a federal ruling explicitly prohibiting the state from doing so.”

The investigation, through parent company USA Today, documented that the “Federal Highway Administration has repeatedly notified Cuomo’s administration over the past three years that the signs violate federal and state law, which contain strict rules for what can and cannot be displayed on major roadways.”

New York had submitted a formal request to the Federal Highway Administration on May 31, 2013, asking to experiment with the new type of highway signs to boost the state’s tourism programs. The response was remarkably quick, brief, and succinct. Mark Kehrli, director of the federal Office of Transportation Operations, issued an official ruling to the state two weeks later: “Your request is hereby denied.”

Despite the Fed rejection, in his State of the State address in 2014, the Governor said:

We are going to launch a whole new signage campaign on our roads, promoting the assets of New York, organized into three campaigns. The path through history campaign, the I love New York attraction campaign and the taste of New York Food and Beverages. You will see these signs on the roads literally in the next few days. These campaigns link online to all those attractions in that particular area, all along the thruway and all along major routes. The goal is to get people who are on the roads off the roads and into communities and fostering and promoting the economy of the state of New York.

And that is exactly what New York did.  The signs are generally in packs of 5, separated by 400 feet: a “motherboard” touts the “New York Experience” followed by four signs touting individual state tourism programs like Taste NY and Path through History. The Federal Highway Administration repeatedly said “No” and New York determinedly said “Yes” and installed them. Done deal.

According to the article, in a statement that week, state DOT spokesman Gary Holmes contended the signs fully comply with the law. He also reported that the cost of the signs and posts — not including the labor to install them — was $1.76 million between the DOT and the Thruway Authority.

“We view them as a critical element in a coordinated strategic program to promote the state’s multi-billion dollar tourism industry. We continue to work with FHWA to ensure any questions are answered.”

Cuomo himself then joined the fray. He pointed out the state has an app that allows visitors to track what attractions are near them.

“We’re trying to capture those people who travel through New York and say, ‘See something while you’re here. Spend some of your money while you’re in upstate New York,’” he told reporters in Rochester.

Campbell’s article reports a successful effort in Suffolk to reduce the number of these signs. They were too big and out-of-place for the local flavor the Montauk community was trying to promote for its tourism.

The saga continues.

On November 8, Campbell, the same reporter, quoted Acting Executive Director Bill Finch of the Thruway Authority asserting that the signs follow “the spirit of the law.” Finch contrasted the “letter of the law” with the “spirit of the law” and challenged the Federal Highway Administration to update its standards.

On November 14, Campbell reported that the Federal Highway Administration had questioned 10 newly-opened or proposed rest areas as not being in compliance with the virtually total ban on commercial activity on rest stops on the Interstate Highways. As if that would matter to New York State…. Do you really think the Federal Government will withhold any of the $1.7 billion federal funding for New York’s transportation infrastructure. Calling the Federal Highway Administration’s bluff is a no-brainer.

On November 30, the New York Times entered the battle. It reported a meeting would be held in December to attempt to resolve the dispute which had been festering for years. It also noted an issue had been raised over the increased driving fatalities due to distracted drivers. Trying to read the information on the motherboard sign touting multiple state attractions at 65+ mph certainly would qualify as a distraction.

The article went on quote a State Legislator from Suffolk on the situation there previously mentioned.

“They were really so out of character with the small communities and two-lane highways that they actually worked against the reason why people come to the East End to begin with,” said Fred W. Thiele Jr., a New York assemblyman who represents the area and who fought to have the signs removed. “We’ve spent literally a billion dollars protecting small villages and scenic vistas and all of that, and putting up eight giant billboards wasn’t really promoting those very scenic features.”

So not long after the signs were erected, cherry pickers showed up and took down seven of them. Mr. Thiele, a member of the Independence Party, hopes the remaining blue sign, at the intersection of West Lake Drive and Flamingo Avenue, is next.

“Quite frankly, we kind of felt that not only were they inappropriate,” he said, “but it was really kind of a boondoggle.”

The next day, the New York Post editorial board expressed it’s concern. It did so in response to an article the previous day by one of its reporters. That article ridiculed the hiring an Arkansas company to promote New York products as Campbell had reported on November 18.

“I find it ironic that a company from Arkansas was paid to work on a project helping to promote New York State products,” said Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi (D-Utica). “It’s simply a bad sign when New York picks Arkansas for a project promoting our state.”

The Post provided a reason for this outreach to Arkansas:

The state hired an Arkansas company to make hundreds of highway signs promoting New York because Gov. Cuomo wanted them up by the July 4th holiday and the Department of Transportation couldn’t meet his deadline, sources told The Post.

Members of Cuomo’s executive staff were so hot to get the signs ready for holiday travelers, they told state transportation employees to do “whatever it took to erect the signs,” sources said.

DOT denies the charge.

Federal Highway Administration spokesman Neil Gaffney said,

“We have been clear with NYSDOT that its tourism-related signs are out of compliance with federal law and create a safety concern. A particular area of concern for us is that fact that we are committed to reducing scenarios involving distracted driving, and these signs can distract drivers. We will specifically discuss how these signs violate national standards and a plan to bring the State into compliance [at the upcoming meeting],”

The Post editorial following this article mocked these developments.

Call it a Gov. Cuomo classic: Order 500 signs to plug New York on state highways — never mind if they’re made outside New York. Or if posting them is even legal.

[Instead of “ironic” as Assemblyman Brindisi said, the Post had] We’d call it bizarre — and telling.
Let’s face it: With Cuomo, it’s damn the details, full speed ahead.…
Sure, sometimes speed counts. But in Cuomo’s case, his haste is mostly meant to promote him. And, alas, there’s no, uh, sign that’ll change any time soon.

On December 2, in this ongoing story, Campbell reported based again on FOIL documents that Federal Highway Administration had offered New York State a deal two years to resolve the issue. The proposal was ignored. Apparently the State’s position is “My way or the highway!” The headlines present an interesting insight into newspaper reporting. The printed edition in my local paper says “State turned down deal on NY signs.” When I looked online to obtain the url for the post the headline was