A reader named Matt W. wrote in with an interesting idea:
I drove from Cincinnati to Hilton Head, S.C., recently. When we were going through the Smoky Mountains, the highway had “No Trucks This Lane” painted on it.
The words were painted in large bold letters so they were easy to read. It made me wonder why they don’t allow advertising painted right on the road. It wouldn’t be more distracting than the many billboards that are all over the place. Couldn’t this be a tremendous source of ad revenue for the state and federal governments?
They could define some parameters around it. Perhaps none could be painted on the roads in congested areas — maybe only have one per mile. No alcohol or cigarette ads of course.
What do blog readers think? Is this is good idea? Is there enough revenue potential to make it worth doing? Are there legal issues? Is this already being done anywhere?

All well and good for those with beaters, ngk, but what about the rest of us. I don’t want ads on my new car! My new car, which probably produces a lot fewer emissions and uses less gas than the average beater.
As for sponsored roads, they have those here in NY too (and I think most of the US). There was actually a big to-do a while back when the Ku Klux Klan wanted to sponsor a highway. Legally, the US government had to allow it, but they later renamed the Klan’s highway the Rosa Parks Highway.
I have no problems with ads, but this is just another distraction that will cause more accidents and more driving errors.
When one of those new variable message displays that warn of traffic delays or police messages was installed on my route home it regularly creates a huge delay every time a message is displayed because fool drivers slow down to read it. Ads on roads risk more of the same.
Why not take it one step further and have corporate sponsorship of buildings like they do with stadiums?
E.G.
The Jiffy Lube Washington Memorial
The Bell Helicopters Vietnam Veterans Memorial
The Starbucks Liberty Bell
A major problem I see is this: Currently road markings are directional or instructional; they tell the driver something about the road itself and what they can do on it. A driver can pretty much count on this, so if s/he sees writing on the road ahead, s/he pays attention (even if the instruction is not necessarily for him/her, as in the case of cars in the lane in this example).
If we throw advertising into the mix … or any other kind of information which is otherwise not instructional or directional … we risk drivers “tuning out” road markings.
If a road is marked with “Warning: Stop Ahead,” is it really a good idea to have plastered the previous 20 miles of road with “Eat at Joe’s,” to the point where the driver no longer pays attention?
Before we give America’s desperate and overeager advertising industry yet another venue to saturate with ads that we become inured to, let’s think this over very carefully. It’s something that could affect public safety.
Oh, my God!!
That would be interesting… Even more pollution (visual) associated to the horrible amount of pollution we have on the streets…
Not that I am a crazy environmentalist, but… Seriously… How much better would it be if the streets were surrounded by nice trees to absorb a bit of the CO2 and even the noise?
You must say I am a dreamer,
but I am not the only one…
Cheers!
Jana
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Don’t care about revenue, I care about the aesthetics. How about no billboards AND no painting on the road.
I think it’s pretty much unanimous: this is the worst idea ever. It is so profoundly stupid, it is almost beyond belief. Either Steven is mocking Matt W or he simply didn’t even bother to think for two seconds before posting this.
“Is this a good idea?”
Are you serious?
Great idea!
What I love is that the ads are two dimensional. If we did this instead of billboards the countryside would be a lot more beautiful.
Better idea for the future- transmit virtual billboards onto the cars windshields so we can get full motion advertising without the billboards while are cars are guided by autopilot.