HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-13 YPC PacketF101111111E
1'11:
COM IVI S'Y ' "il",,'LOP P'IV " �,>ARI ' "1' i " " I'll)Pla
n i ,.
City of Yakima Planning Commission
STUDY SESSION
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday November 13, 2013
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
YPC Members:
Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Dave Fonfara, Al Rose,
Scott Clark, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook
City Planning Staff:
Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director/Planning Manager, Jeff Peters, Supervising
Planner; Chris Wilson, Assistant Planner; and Rosalinda Ibarra, Administrative Assistant
Agenda
I. Call to Order
Il. Roll Call
III. Staff Announcements:
0Next Planning Commission Meeting Date
IV. General Audience Participation (Not Associated with an Item on the Agenda)
V. Introductory Discussion: Billboards & Digital Signs
VI. Introductory Discussion: Recreational Marijuana
VII. Other Business
VIII. Adjourn
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY
r r /, 1 f q)mill 1,1" 11 1
f1 "11�
mmlll
..............
r s k /1
Pi C2 2 W I0 -ftf -Ile ����, W CI i
VAJ
_.. — ...............
MCs ��� C�a•7rR�� (���I ��AZ� 2c,u� goAcdd , �Jt� � `�3?
......................
oar c.w,t:4.74 X- ED. . .......... . 8' ....._
:� I 04MV va k(jk4q (f- �-L) M,
. ................
.7c').NLp vbl 1-7, plj!�f t��
V Ldlk/� iCc
___._._._ .........
............ .......
__ .....__
Page 1
ULAIZOIZE
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Billboards & Digital Signs
Date: November 13, 2013
On March 26 of this year, staff shared with Council a PowerPoint presentation on
both the positive aspects of Yakima's built environment and the areas where the
City has experience significant decline in both the visual and socio-economic
quality of its commercial districts and neighborhoods. The presentation identified
those features that contributed to the visual disarray and negative images of the
City's major entry corridors, including Nob Hill Boulevard and North First Street.
As part of that presentation, staff suggested that billboards were one of the more
visually obtrusive features in some of the areas discussed and, based upon the
content of billboard ads, provided questionable benefit to the City of Yakima.
Considerable discussion then ensued over signage, particularly large signs and
billboards. The Council determined that a moratorium should be adopted at least
on billboards to ensure that no additional signs of this scale could be installed.
(The Commission can view the full proceedings of the March 26th meeting on the
City's website). A moratorium ordinance was then presented to and adopted by
the Council on April 2, 2013. The moratorium pertained to any off -premise sign
72 square feet or larger, and to any on or off -premise digital sign 72 square feet
or larger.
During the moratorium period, staff inventoried existing billboards in Yakima and
more fully researched the billboard issue. The results of that research were
included in a comprehensive report that was submitted to the City Council on
October 1, 2013. The report:
a. Provided an inventory of existing billboards in Yakima, including their
location and the content of their ads in terms local or non -local
promotions.
b. Described the debate over billboard effects on economic development and
revitalization efforts.
c. Provided information on the affect of billboards on property values and
local economies.
d. Addressed the issue of traffic safety as it relates to billboards.
e. Provided information on how other jurisdictions both regionally and
nationally have chosen to regulate billboards.
f. Described how the billboard industry has affected policy on this topic at
the local, state and national level, and the tactics the City of Yakima can
expect the industry to take to affect any changes in local regulations of
billboards.
The report was discussed with the City Council on the last day of the moratorium
— October 1, 2013. The findings of the report were summarized in a PowerPoint
presentation given the same evening, and staff provided for the Council's
consideration various options for moving this matter forward. Staff also
requested that the moratorium be extended to allow time to pursue the selected
option.
After staff's presentation, the City Council heard testimony from two
representatives of the billboard industry (Outdoor Advertising Association of
America) and one representative from the sign industry (International Sign
Association). They each suggested that the bigger problem was not billboards,
but on -premise digital signs. One representative also suggested that much of the
information in the staff's report was not correct and submitted to Council his own
information regarding city codes, permits and where billboards could and could
not be placed. That input convinced the Council that the moratorium should be
extended to include all digital signs (including on -premise), but caused some
disagreement over the extent to which non -digital billboards should be regulated.
The motion to extend the existing moratorium was therefore approved, but it was
not a unanimous vote, meaning that it would not take effect until 30 days after
publication of the ordinance. There was a follow-up motion to include in the
moratorium all digital signs — on and off -premise. It also was approved, but again
the vote was not unanimous, deferring the effective date to 30 days after
publication (i.e., November 3, 2013)
The result is that there are now two moratoriums related to signage in effect, as
follows:
1. Any off -premise sign 72 square feet or larger, and any on or off -premise
digital sign 72 square feet or larger.
2. Any digital sign of any size, on or off -premise.
Staff asked for the Council's direction on a preferred option for addressing the
issues. Different ideas were discussed, but no specific direction was stipulated.
Ultimately the Council chose to defer to the Planning Commission to make a
policy recommendation on both matters.
The purpose of this first meeting is to provide the above background information
as a basis for developing a scope of work, including the degree to which
billboards should be regulated in the City of Yakima. I'll share a "CliffsNotes"
version of the PowerPoint presentation I shared with Council so that you can see
some of the visuals and photos that where part of that discussion. We will also at
least introduce you to resources that we can draw from to develop regulations
pertaining to digital signs. Ben received some good information from Peter
Grover of Metro signs that will be helpful. This will be the more technical aspect
of this effort because it involves consideration of both the driver safety aspect of
digital signs, and the aesthetic and nuisance factors of light, glare and motion.
We currently have no regulations on the use of digital signs and there are various
ways to define both the intensity of light emitted from the signs, and the manner
in which they are allowed to animate or change messages.
Specific discussion items may include:
1. Brief Overview of Issue
2. Soliciting Public Input
3. Development of Possible Options (making no commitments to any at this
point)
4. Discussion of resources
To facilitate the above discussion the following items are attached:
1. Staff Report to City Council dated September 9, 2013 (previously provided
to Commission).
2. Technical Date from Industry:
a. Conformance of Watchfire to Signs
b. OAAA Conventional vs. Digit Study
c. OAAA Recommended Brightness Guidelines for Digital Billboards
d. Photocell Fact Sheet.
3. Swedish Study — Electronic Billboards
4. VirginiaTech Study Results — Electronic Billboards
C. Clarification of Staff Report Information
Finally, to get us started on the right foot, I want to address any
misunderstandings over information provided in the September 9, 2013 staff
report to the City Council. Regarding comments provided to the Council by
Industry reps questioning the need for the moratorium, the following clarifications
may be helpful should these same issues arise during the Commission's
deliberations on this matter:.
Billboards versus On-site Pole Signs. It was suggested that staff's
billboard inventory included on-site pole signs and therefore overstated
the number of existing billboards in the community. The inventory
included only off -premise ads on structures labeled with billboard
company names (e.g., Lamar, CBS, and Metro). The inventory included
pictures of each billboard and its associated messages. It documents 81
structures with 119 sign faces, and 157 ads.
2. Allowable Zones for Billboards. It was stated that billboards were
allowed only in the M1, M2, CBD, and CBDS zones and that there are no
zones on the west side that allow billboards. That assertion was based
upon an old code. We no longer have a CBDS zone. The current code
allows billboards in the M1, M2, CBD, GC and RD zones. There are large
areas of GC zoning on the west side and large areas of RD zoning on the
east side where billboards are permitted. The only other locational
restriction is a requirement that billboards be at least 150 feet from a
residential district and that they be reduced in size and non -illuminated if
they are within 300 feet of a residential district. There is an approximate
5000 -foot stretch on Nob Hill Boulevard west of 54th Avenue that would
allow at least the smaller sized billboards, and approximately 2000 feet
that would allow full sized billboards. There are also locations on other
cross roads in that area that would facilitate the same.
3. Issued Permits. It was stated that since 2009 only one permit was
issued for a new billboard and two permits for upgrades. It's not clear
why 2009 was chosen as a benchmark year. Since 2008 we have issued
10 billboard permits. Since 2006 we have issued 15 permits. But what is
particularly significant is that 62% of existing billboards have no permits
on file with the City of Yakima. It appears that many billboards may have
been installed illegally and we don't know the date of their installation.
4. Billboards along Highways. It was stated that there are no locations for
billboards along freeways because WSDOT prohibits billboards within two
miles of interchanges. It is true that there are no opportunities for new
billboards along 1-82 in city limits under current WAC standards
(Washington Annotated Code). However, the two-mile rule applies only to
interstates; not to primary highways. There is potential under current
WSDOT standards for up to two additional billboards along Hwy. 12.
Moreover, existing billboards on 1-82 might also be converted to digital if
the State amends the Scenic Vistas Act as the outdoor sign industry has
repeatedly proposed. Finally, the two-mile rule is a provision under the
WACs and is more restrictive that the provision of the RCWs. The WACs
are subject to change as department administration changes.
5. Billboard Lease Terms. When staff expressed concerns over fine print
lease renewal provisions for billboards that adversely affect future property
redevelopment, it was stated that 99% of property leases have a 90 -day
period whereby the property owner can determine if he wants to continue
this lease. Numerous complaints reveal that this in often not the case,
and it is certainly not the case for the three billboards on City property
(corner of Lincoln Way and No 1S). Here is the language from the City of
Yakima's lease with CBS Outdoor:
"The Principal Term shall be for 10 years . . . Viacom Outdoor
has the right to extend the Principal Term for an additional term of
10 years on the same terms beginning upon expiration of the initial
Principal Term which shall be deemed exercised by tendering
the first installment of the rent due for second term."
[Emphasis added].
6. Property Values. It was asserted that "property values go up because
they increase the value of the property on which they are located". The
statistics on property values in my report pertained not to the properties on
which the billboards were placed, but to the surrounding properties, which
were shown to have decreased property values in the Philadelphia study
referenced in the report.
7. Number of Changing Messages. My report mentioned that the billboard
on Valley Mall Blvd. and Longfibre Road contained 13 changeable
messages. One representative at the hearing stated that it does not
contain 13 messages because the rules of Outdoor Advertising
Association of America (OAAA) limit messages to 8. He said there might
be loops that bring it back around to different copy from the same
advertiser, but that there were no more than 8 advertisers. My report did
not differentiate between who placed the ads; only on the number of
changing messages because the concern was the amount of messages a
driver can read without being unduly distracted. There were 13 changing
messages documented for the sign.
Yakima Billboard Moratorium
First Report to Yakima City Council
September 9, 2013
Background:
On April 2, 2013, the City of Yakima imposed a moratorium on the installation of any
new off -premise signs and any digital signs 72 square feet or larger. This has more
commonly been referred to as a billboard moratorium because it was the common
billboard - digitized or otherwise - that the moratorium was intended to address. The
moratorium was the result of a discussion city staff had with the Council over Yakima's
built environment. Staff shared with Council a PowerPoint presentation on both the
positive aspects of Yakima's built environment and the areas where the City has
experience significant decline in both the visual and socio-economic quality of its
commercial districts and neighborhoods. The presentation identified those features that
contributed to the visual disarray and negative images of the City's major entry corridors,
including Nob Hill Boulevard and North First Street. Billboards were cited as one of the
more visually obtrusive features in these areas that could severely hamper the City's
ability to revitalize neighborhoods.
And based upon the content of
billboard ads, it was noted that they
provided questionable benefit to the
City of Yakima. Many were found to
promote products or services that
conveyed a negative image of the City,
such as criminal wanted postings, "jail
sucks" bail bonding services, and
alcohol products at city entrances and
in low income neighborhoods. Others
were found to advertize services not
located in the city of Yakima, such as
a casino in Toppenish, a business in
Ellensburg, and a ski resort in Canada.
Finally, it was shown that the physical condition of the billboards were often tattered and
run down, contributing to a blighted image of Yakima's highly visual entry corridors.
The purpose of this report therefore is to provide additional information to the Yakima
City Council that will serve as a basis for further discussion and policy development on
this topic. Specifically, this report:
a. Provides an inventory of existing billboards in Yakima, including their location
and the content of their ads in terms local or non -local promotions.
b. Describes the debate over billboard effects on economic development and
revitalization efforts.
c. Provides information on the affect of billboards on property values and local
economies.
d. Addresses the issue of traffic safety as it relates to billboards.
e. Provides information on how other jurisdictions both regionally and nationally
have chosen to regulate billboards.
f. Describes how the billboard industry has affected policy on this topic at the local,
state and national level, and the tactics the City of Yakima can expect the industry
to take to affect any changes in local regulations of billboards.
A Comparison of Yakima Billboard Policies
At a local level, regulation of billboards should reflect city policy and align with Council
objectives and strategies. The City Council has adopted policies with a strong focus on
improving the built environment, cleaning up entry corridors, and improving the image of
the City. It is therefore appropriate to consider how billboards contribute to or detract
from the visual qualities of the city.
The City of Yakima is known for its pro-business policies, its economic growth focus,
and its concern for individual property rights. In that regard, Yakima is not unlike other
eastern Washington cities that lean toward more conservative policies on land use
regulations. It is therefore significant that the cities of Union Gap, Kennewick, Pasco,
Richland, Wenatchee, Spokane, Spokane Valley, Walla Walla, Wenatchee and Moses
Lake, have chosen to ban new billboards in their communities. At first glance, this seems
2
contradictory to the conservative policies of eastern Washington. But a closer look
reveals that this is not always a partisan issue. Many cities find that amenity provides a
competitive edge in their economic development strategies. Even traditionally
conservative cities like Houston and Salt Lake City (discussed below) believe that
billboards impose significant liabilities to their development objectives. Other large
cities banning new billboards include Seattle, Denver, Durham, San Diego, Little Rock,
Raleigh, Durham, Jacksonville, and Kansas City. At a much broader level, Vermont,
Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine have imposed statewide bans on billboards, finding that the
aesthetic character of their landscape drives their state economies.
Not surprisingly, the billboard industry argues against such hard line policies, insisting
that its product is essential for economic success and that it promotes community
interests. A common industry claim is that (a) over 70% of billboard advertisers are local
businesses; and (b) the billboard industry donates $400 million in public service
advertising each year.' Billboard opponents argue the opposite, claiming that billboards
more commonly advertise national brands or out-of-state products, that most billboards
are located in low-income, minority neighborhoods, and that billboards within those
neighborhoods heavily advertise alcohol and other addictive products.
Yakima Billboard Inventory
It is therefore helpful to consider where billboards are located in Yakima and what
products they actually do promote. An inventory conducted in the summer of 2013 found
119 billboards located within city limits on 69 structures. 84% of billboards in Yakima
lie east of 16 th Street in the cities lower income neighborhoods. 16% he west of 16"'
Street, but 55% of those lie along Fruitvale Avenue, which is another area characterized
by low income neighborhoods. (See attached map in Appendix "A")
The following table shows the content of Yakima billboard adds by category2:
Billboard
Local Business'
Non -Local Business
Public Service'
Addictive Products
)ry in Yakima (s of uly 2013)
Number of ads Percent of total adds
47 30%
........................ ......... .... .. _.... ......... _...
_1m06........................................................................................ ...._.-......�.-...-...-...-... 68%
9 6%
........ ................ -39_.__ ._._._._._._.__._. ........... 25%
1 The Sign of The Times.org, FAQ's, Los Angeles Billboards, Q: What is the Impact of billboards on the
economy?", & Q: "What do billboard companies do to help the community?"
2 Figures on the number of ads by category takes into account digital and tri -fold billboards that display
multiple ads on single billboards.
3 Includes specific local businesses with city address; does not include ads for products sold by local
businesses.
4 Includes businesses, corporations and organizations headquartered outside city limits.
5Includes ads for social service, public awareness, "crinrestopper"e fire prevention, etc.
6 Includes alcohol products and gambling facilities.
C
Aesthetics & Public Opinion of Billboards
The industry makes few claims that billboards are intended to be attractive. Their
principle purpose is to be dominantly visible to a large number of people. One
commenter on the usefulness of billboard advertizing noted, "One of the advantages to
having a billboard over a newspaper or magazine advertisement is that people cannot turn
the page or throw out your billboard message. A radio or television advertisement can be
turned off or ignored, where a billboard is constantly on and in areas where people are
going to see it."'
Such advantages to advertisers are the windfall of public monies that paid for the roads
from which billboards are viewed. (A billboard has no value unless it is seen from public
ways). The question is whether the public is fairly compensated for subsidizing billboard
advertising and whether any costs or benefits accrue to the public. It is difficult to
quantify the aesthetic costs or benefits of billboards because it requires that a value be
placed upon such things as a view of the landscape, or a view of a cityscape. But even
the courts have not been shy about the aesthetic impacts billboards. In the landmark case
Metromedia v. the City of San Diego, the court declared, "It is not speculative to
recognize that billboards by their very nature, wherever located and however construed,
can be perceived as an aesthetic harm". 8
Surveys have been conducted to access public opinion on billboards with seemingly
conflicting results. But the conflicts appear to be based on the types of questions asked
and on who is conducting the survey. Some are conducted by "hired guns" of advocacy
groups, while others are conducted by local jurisdictions trying to assess local opinion.
Clearly, the Billboard industry likes to cite survey results that champion their cause. For
example, an article published on the web by Vegas LED Screens — maker of digital
billboard signs — states:
"An August poll found that 80 percent of U.S. adults believe digital billboards are
useful to drivers in giving them important information, and nearly the same
proportion disagree with attempts to ban billboards. The American public
overwhelmingly supports digital billboards despite many municipalities' attempts
to ban them, according to new research commissioned by the Outdoor Advertising
Association of America (OAAA)."
Conversely, Scenic America, one of the strongest advocacy groups opposing billboards
insists that public opinion polls finding that people actually like billboards are a myth,
stating:
"Actually, the opposite is true. Reputable public opinion polls find that most
Americans think billboards are ugly, intrusive, and uninformative. Not one
reputable survey shows that people like billboards.
Arnold Anderson, eHow Contributor, +www,e)-1ow.coni; "The Advantages of Advertizing on Billboards",
8 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 510 (198 1) (Hitte, J.).
C!
"• By a 10 to 1 margin, Floridians favor reducing the number of billboards "Survey
on Outdoor Advertising." 1995.
• More than two-thirds of New Hampshire residents oppose billboards on
highways "Public Attitudes Toward Billboards in New Hampshire." 1994.
• 9 out of 10 Michigan residents feel the state has too many billboards "Questions
commissioned by Michigan United Conservation Clubs." 1997
• 69% of Missourians believe that fewer billboards would make their states more
attractive. "Statewide Public Opinion Poll on Billboards." 1994
• 81% of residents of Houston, TX favor their existing ordinance banning new
billboard construction. "Assessing Public Opinion Regarding Billboards in the
Houston Area." 1996."
Without reviewing the questions and methods of the surveys referenced by either Scenic
America or the Billboard industry, it is difficult to access their level of objectivity. It is
nonetheless clear that the results persuaded many local policy makers to enact laws
banning or significantly limiting billboards. That may be the best expression of public
opinion — at least local opinion - on the matter of billboard aesthetics.
Few large cities have taken a more firm position against billboards than Houston Texas,
which is striking because Houston is the only major U.S. City with no zoning codes. Yet
this "no -zones -about -it" pro -development city has expressed a "no bones about it" stance
on eliminating billboards. Houston's business community declared that "a city with trees
and landscaping which bloom without being blocked by billboards was a more appealing
place in which to do business than a city in which forests of billboards dotted the so-
called landscape." Houston recently won a long-running battle at the U.S. Supreme
Court level to eliminate 59 billboards that had been installed without permits and in
violation of the City's billboard ban. City mayor, Annise Parker commented, "This is
another major victory in the long-running battle to reduce visual blight. Sign control, an
attractive urban streetscape and green space equal a formula designed not only to insure
the quality of life for Houstonians but a recipe for economic success."9
This has not been so easy for some cities, especially in those states were the billboard
industry has successfully lobbied State legislatures to strip towns and cities of power to
regulate billboards at the local level. That is currently the concern of Salt Lake City
Mayor, Ralph Becker, who fears that state legislators (of whom only 4 out of 104 did not
accept campaign financing from Utah -based Reagan Sign Company) may step in to
further protect the billboard industry in the response to current City efforts to address the
onslaught of digital billboards. This issue was recently addressed in an article published
in The Deseret News titled, "Good for business or bad for scenery? Salt Lake City
renews battle with billboard industry"10 The article highlighted the current debate over
9 Dennis Hathaway, "axe Billboards U.S. Good for Business? For One Major U.Cit the 4t, Answer it
EIn a tic NQ". lw�tp: /laa� i�r161mc� arclk�lagh, G arra; October 24, 2010,
to Pat ^ g e„1. 1,3, Aril 13, p ). (good For Business or bird for scertet ? "Salt 'Lake Cit renews battle with
(,�(l'
illboartl indtrstr; The Deseret News, Retrieved from
http: //www.deseretnews.com/article/865554037/Good-for-business-or-bad-for-scenery-S alt -Lake -City -
renews -battle -with -billboard -industry. html?pg=all
5
Salt Lake's efforts to regulate or ban electronic billboards. It is significant that in this
highly conservative pro-business state, blog respondents came out 10 to 1 against the
industry, claiming that Salt Lake City's otherwise beautiful setting has been marred by an
onslaught of billboards. Equally telling is the response of a pro-business member of the
Salt Lake City Council who stated, "A vote for billboards isn't necessarily a vote for
business". He said, "My personal opinion is that business is good, but not all business is
good. I'm not a fan of billboards".ii
Another city typically friendly to billboards but now in a billboard battle is Los Angeles,
California. LA residents were outraged by recent conversions of static billboards to
electronic billboards, claiming that the bright illumination of the ads created blight and
reflected into their yards and homes. 100 billboards were allowed to be converted to
digital when the city agreed to an illegal settlement with CBS and Clear Channel outdoor
advertising in 2006. That deal was contrary to a municipal ordinance prohibiting
"alterations or enlargement" of such signs. A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge ruled
the permits invalid and ordered 77 of the signs to go dark. The California Supreme Court
declined to hear the case, effectively ending the billboard companies' legal options and
ending the city's 5 -year legal battle over the signs.
Economic Impact of Billboards:
Economic Development Via. Property Valu:
The visual impact of billboards is not purely an aesthetic concern. As the examples
above indicate, many communities have found that aesthetics are integrally linked to the
economic wellbeing of the community and that billboards are at odds with these
objectives. So as Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii and Maine have determined that their scenic
landscapes drive their tourism economies; it is not surprising that resort communities
across the nation have likewise banned billboards. Examples include Aspen, Vail and
Boulder, Colorado; Park City, Utah; Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts; Jackson Hole,
Wyoming; Sun Valley, Idaho, as well as Palm
Springs, California. Visitors to the "Palm Springs
of Washington" might therefore be surprised to be
welcomed through billboard medium.
But the attested benefit of banning billboards goes
beyond tourism objectives. Madeleine Appel,
deputy director of the Houston city controller's
office commented, "The business community
seems to have bought into the scenic
community's belief that one of the things that
makes Houston a good place to live, work and
create businesses is the aesthetic environment -which, in part, means less billboard clutter
and more green". 12 Clark Martinson, general manager of Houston's Energy Corridor
11 ibid
12 ibid
0
District said, "The 1980 ban on new billboards and the resulting significant reduction in
billboard numbers, through redevelopment and attrition, has had no negative effects on
economic development and property values in Houston.',13
Support for Houston's ban comes from two of the city's largest developers — Gerald
Hines and Kenneth Schnitzer. In 1984 Schnitzer sent 500 letters to civic and trade
organizations trying to raise support for legislation aimed at "visual pollution" in
Houston. Schnitzer is on the advisory board of Billboards Limited, a local anti -billboard
group. "Damn it, we've got to clean this city up," Schnitzer once said in explaining why
he supports such controls.
Clearly, economies have not folded in Houston or other cities and states that have enacted
tough billboard laws. But that is only one side of the coin. We should also consider
whether billboards can in fact enhance the economies of cities that allow them. Most
studies have focused on the economic gain to properties on which billboards are placed.
But until recently, few studies have examined the impacts on properties within the
vicinity of billboards, or the broader relationship between billboard controls and the
economic condition of cities within the Unites States. These relationships were more
recently addressed in a study conducted by Jonathan Snyder out of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Snyder published his study in a paper titled.„ "Beyond Aesthetics: How
Billboards Affect Economic Prosperity" 14 Snyder's study focused on 20 major US
cities, including those with non -strict billboard controls, and those with strict billboard
controls. He found that (1) The median income for strict control cities is higher than that
for not -strict cities; (2) The mean poverty rate for cities with stricter sign control is lower
than for cities without strict sign controls; and (3) The mean home vacancy rate is lower
for strict sign control cities.
Snyder also studied the impact that billboards have on Philadelphia properties within the
vicinity of billboards. He found that properties located within 500 feet of a billboard
have a decreased real estate value of $30,826. Homes located further than 500 feet but
within a census tract/community where billboards are present experience a decrease of
$947 for every billboard in that census tract. His essential finding for Philadelphia was
that billboards have negative financial and economic impacts.
A specific example of billboard interests thwarting economic development activities
comes again from Salt Lake City, where city officials have been battling billboard
corporations in Salt Lake's redevelopment efforts. Salt Lake passed a nine-month
moratorium on billboards last April. The follow excerpt is from an article published in
High Country News based upon an interview with Salt Lake's senior land use planner
Doug Dansie. The author writes:
"On busy 600 South, a primary gateway from I-15 into downtown. . . Reagan
Outdoor Advertising has a large billboard next to one of the newer motels, a
13 Hathaway, IBID
14 Jonathan Snyder, Beyond Aesthetics: How Billboards Affect Economic Prosperity, December 2011,
Funded by the Samuel S. Fels Fund.
VA
Marriott Springhill Suites. When the city approved the motel, Reagan Outdoor
complained that the motel's sign would block its billboard and wanted permission
to raise its billboard to be 85 feet tall. The city decided instead to have the motel
change the location of its sign. Then Reagan complained that the light poles in the
motel parking lot blocked views of the billboard and reportedly wanted more than
$1 million in compensation. (That dispute is still unresolved.) On his downtown
billboards tour, Dansie points to another billboard site where, he says, zoning
laws permit a 375 -foot -tall office building. The combination of a billboard
easement and the law against blocking views of billboards is keeping that lot
occupied only by a one-story strip mall, however. Other downtown billboards are
similar obstacles to downtown renewal, Dansie sas: "The reality is, the outdoor
advertising industry is suppressing development."'
Industry responses to such complaints are mostly formulaic. To its own hypothetical
question, "What is the impact of billboards on the economy?" the outdoor advertising
industry gave its familiar 70% -local -business doomsday response to its Los Angeles
readers, claiming,
"More than 70 percent of billboard advertisers are local businesses, and in Los
Angeles, there are more than 6,000 businesses using billboards. These businesses
employ over 175,000 people. Outdoor advertising is highly effective at increasing
sales. Recent studies have shown that businesses that use billboards would lose up
to 20 percent of their business without access to billboards. (Taylor & Franke,
Journal of Advertising Research (2003), Cambridge University Press)." 16
The above response seems to contradict other available figures on this topic. The
Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) has purportedly stated that the top
three companies advertising on billboards as of 2009 were McDonald's, Verizon Long
Distance„ and Pepsi, with a large number of wireless phone companies, movie companies,
car manufacturers and banks also being high on the list. 17 Though the source of that
information is not confirmed, it more closely reflects Yakima's billboard inventory
figures showing that nearly 70% of billboard ads in Yakima are for non -local businesses,
which is exactly the opposite of industry claims.
Taxation of Billboards:
A final issue regarding billboard economics is the method by which billboards are taxed.
In terms of tax revenue, billboards are considered personal property in Washington State
for purposes of property taxation. The industry's justification of this, which apparently
was persuasive to lawmakers, is that billboards do not belong to the underlying property
owner. The land is simply being leased and the billboard can be removed and used
elsewhere. This departs significantly from taxation laws on other structures permanently
15 Ray Ring, High Country News, Bozeman Montana, Billboard Companies Use Money and Influence to
Override Your Vote, January 23, 2012
16 The Sign of The Times.org, FAQ's, Los Angeles Billboards, Q: What is the Impact of Billboards on the
Economy?"
" Wikipedia, Billboards (non -referenced source)
affixed to the ground. For example, McDonald's will be leasing the underlying land for
its planned restaurant in downtown Yakima, but will actually own the structure. Under
the Billboard Industry's rationale, the McDonald's building should be considered
personal rather than real property, since it is just as possible to relocate a building as it is
to relocate a billboard (and perhaps more likely given the tenacity of the Industry to keep
billboards in place!)
Bonnie Brae Mansion Relocation,
South Carolina. 18
While it's possible to relocate
many types of structures,
billboards are one of the few
structure types with
engineered footings and
foundations that are not
included in the improvement
value of land. This provides great advantage to billboard owners over the owners of
other permanently affixed structures, particularly since it is the location — especially
prime locations of high visibility — that gives value to billboards. But what is both ironic
and damaging to local government is that prevailing law often requires them to be valued
as real property for eminent domain purposes. Under the provisions of the American
Highway Beautification Act (discussed below), this has had dramatic and dire effects on
jurisdictions that wish to redevelop commercial areas or otherwise enhance their built
environment.
The American Highway Beautification Act (HBA)
Problems associated with billboards and local redevelopment efforts have their roots in
the American Highway Beautification Act (HBA). This law in particular should concern
the City of Yakima as it plans to beautify through landscaping and other improvements
its entry corridors near federal -aid highways. The act in its current state effectively
punished local government for attempting to beautify areas near billboards that the City
may have previously approved. The City should therefore carefully consider whether it
wants to allow new billboards in areas that are subject to the protection of the act.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Highway Beautification Act into law in 1965. Its
intent was to protect the natural and scenic beauty of federal -aid highways by controlling
billboards along rural, scenic and agricultural areas. The objectives of the act included
elimination of existing billboards in rural areas by 1970, and prevention of further spread.
However, through subsequent amendments championed by the billboard industry, the bill
has become a principle driver of billboard proliferation. It has effectively eliminated
traditional police power measures local governments once had to control billboards along
is Picture source, Expert House Movers (EHM) at .P/vvwvvv ex e��toot semovers.com/bonnie-brae-mansion-
i°cloca(ech-lcin--coinin rc �)t-exlIkLiisir)jL/
9
highways that run through their own jurisdiction. Specifically, it prohibits amortization
as a means of compensation to remove billboards within 660 feet of federal -aid
highways. It instead requires local government to resort to eminent domain measures and
forces full cash compensation for their removal. But even more crippling to local
government is that compensation is not just for the value of the structure itself; it is for
the value of the projected revenue the billboard would produce, and can further extend to
the value of other billboards that may in some way be associated with the billboard being
removed.
Such measures have abruptly halted the initial intent of the HBA to remove highway
billboards, and have instead created a safe haven for the industry. As one commenter
noted, "By 1982, so completely had the industry turned the Highway Beautification Act
to its benefit that Vermont's Senator Robert Stafford (R-Vt.), one of the most tenacious of
the billboard reformers, bitterly observed the law would be more aptly labeled the
Billboard Compensation and Protection Act, and sought to repeal the 1965 law.
Ironically, only the billboard industry sought to keep the law regulating signs on and near
federal highways. i 19 This eventual redefinition of the HBA in favor of the billboard
industry would likely be no surprise to Lyndon Johnson who, in a recorded 1968 phone
conversation with then -U.S. Representative and future Speaker Jim Wright, let lose on
the issue with his legendary bluntness. Legislation to strengthen the Highway
Beautification Act, he asserted, was being blocked by "this damned billboard industry" —
"selfish, eager hogs that won't even let folks sit down and reason with them."
This redefinition of the HBA has empowered the billboard industry with a two -edge
sword. With one edge, it allows the industry to capitalize on public investment in
highways; the other edge effectively renders local government powerless to clean up and
redevelop public highways, as though the highways were purchased by and for the
billboard industry. The industry's rationale for this is that billboards represent the use of
private property abutting the highways. Yet the courts have continually affirmed that the
billboard business is a use of the public's investment in roadways rather than a use of
private property. Appendix A provides views from the courts in four landmark rulings
that underscore their position that the "enhanced value" of billboards "was created by the
State in the construction of the roads and not by the signs' owners."20
One area where the industry has been particularly effective at weakening the HBA
through loose interpretation of its provisions is in the area of digital billboards. As
originally and currently worded, the HBA requires that billboard messages be static.
However, in 2007 the industry was successful in getting the Federal Highway
Administration to interpret "static" to mean a message changing no more frequently than
once every 4 seconds. This has given the green light to digital billboards in spite of
HBA's prohibition of non -static billboards. It has also exacerbated concerns over
aesthetic impacts of billboards. Critics who have referred to billboards as "litter on a
19 Philip M. Stern, The Best Congress Money Can Buy, at page 48 (Pantheon Books
1988).
20 Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle, 55 A.D. 2d340 (1977).
10
stick" now also refer to them as "televisions on a stick" or "drive-by theaters". The
digital conversion trend has also heightened concerns regarding the safety aspect of
billboards. Critics marvel that so much attention is paid to the hazards of texting while
driving, while the hazards of watching television while driving have been deemed
"inconclusive" by the FHA.
Industry Lobbyists Focus on State Legislatures, Including Washington.
In addition to industry efforts to both loosen and keep intact the HBA at the federal level,
it has lobbied heavily at the state level for similar allowances in and protection from
communities that might otherwise impose stricter billboard standards. In many cases,
cities and towns have been shielded from the onslaught of billboards along their
highways because of more stringent standards at the state level. The industry is working
hard to change this. In its push to convert static billboards to electronic billboards, the
industry recently proposed legislation that would nullify Washington State's Scenic
Vistas Act by allowing advertizing-driven digital billboards on state highways and scenic
byways. This was proposed in 2012 and failed, and was considered again in 2013 under
Senate Bill SB 5304 and House Bill HB 1408. The matter was also being considered by
the Senate Transportation Committee to enter into an agreement to sell advertising space
to the industry. The "lure" put out by the billboard industry was a promise to post
emergency messaging such as Amber alerts in exchange for continuous commercial
messaging along State highways and scenic byways.
But what was different in the industry's 2013 proposal is that it would purportedly allow
local governments to enact their own restrictions on digital billboards should the State
finally concede to them. That might have sounded like good news to local governments,
but some saw it as a "divide and conquer" approach by the industry. Without the support
and protection of the State, cities and towns would be on their own to defend what
regulations they might dare to enact locally. And given the industry's propensity to sue
any jurisdiction attempting to enact restrictions opposed by the industry, local regulation
is the best the industry could hope for. The billboard industry has clearly shown it has no
qualms about filing law suits virtually every time a city enacts legislation to limit industry
practices. And the fact that the courts almost always rule in favor of those cities willing
to fight the lawsuit doesn't deter the industry from stretching its lucrative muscles. The
unfortunate fact is that many cash-strapped cities simply don't have the financial
resources and/or the staff expertise to fight the lawsuits, and they simply give in to
industry threats.
It was concerns such as this that caused industry efforts with the Washington State
legislature to fail again in 2013, but given the industry's tenacity and continued push at
all state levels, the issue will almost certainly be again before the Legislature in 2014.
11
Driver's Safety
The final aspect to be considered with billboards pertains to driver safety. If one were to
"Google" the question, "do billboards cause accidents?", a number of articles will appear
with headlines stating that there is no statistically significant correlation between
billboards and crashes. The sheer number of such headlines would make one think that
the question of safety is settled and closed. The catch is that virtually every study
referenced by these articles has been commission by or associated with the Outdoor
Advertising Association of America (OAAA) and many contend that the studies are self-
serving and biased. Moreover, most of the headlined articles point back to the same two
oft -referenced studies, including:
"A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio,' , and
"Driving Performance and Digital Billboards: Final Report,"22
While hailed by industry supporters, the studies have been criticized for being
commissioned for self-serving reasons and for lacking proper peer review. The
Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) therefore commissioned independent
peer review of each of the two studies. The review was conducted by Jerry Wachtel,
CPE, President of The Veridian Group, Inc. out of Berkeley, California. His findings
were released in his study title, "A Critical, Comprehensive Review of Two Studies
Recently Released by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America". His findings
were not flattering to either study. He stated,
"Since neither of these two studies had received public peer review at the time of
their issuance, it was premature, at best, for the OAAA to make any claims of the
validity of the findings. Also, since the accident study did not compare accidents
in the presence of EBBs [electronic billboards] to accidents in their absence, the
study presented no evidence, no less conclusive evidence, to justify the OAAA's
claim. In addition, since even a cursory inspection of the human factors study
showed that driver performance and behavior did, in fact, deteriorate when EBBs
were present vs. when they were absent, the OAAA claims seem difficult to
support. Finally, the OAAA's claim that it's Foundation for Outdoor Advertising
Research and Education (FOARE) commissioned these studies to specifically
examine whether there exists "a cause and effect link between outdoor digital
billboards and driver behavior" demands scrutiny since the research methods and
statistical analyses employed in these two studies were incapable of determining
causality."
21 Study by Albert Martin Tantala, Sr., and Michael Walter Tantala, Tantala Associates, Submitted to: The
Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, July 7, 2007"
22 Study by Suzanne E. Lee, Melinda J. McElheny and Ronald Gibbons, Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute Center for Automotive Safety Research, Prepared for: Foundation for Outdoor Advertising
Research and Education, March 22, 2007."
12
Wachtel continues, "Because of the public relations campaign with which the
OAAA released and publicized these two studies, they have received wide press
coverage in print, online, and in the broadcast media. Without exception, this
coverage has presented uncritical acceptance of these two reports as presented,
with no scrutiny of their scientific or technical soundness. As a result, numerous
States and local government agencies have begun to modify their codes and
ordinances that address the use of digital billboards along the roadside. Having
completed this peer review, it is our opinion that acceptance of these reports as
valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data, and that ordinance or
code changes based on their findings is ill advised. Even the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has issued a recent policy memorandum in which DBBs
are given tacit acceptance under certain conditions, possibly based in part on the
release of these two studies. Because FHWA remains concerned about the safety
implications of EBBs on highways, and because of its stated intention to conduct
or sponsor its own research into this issue, it seems to this writer logical that any
such policy change await further developments from research."
The Federal Highway Administration has been in the process of studying the safety
aspect of digital billboards since at least 2007. During that time, the Administration
continued to state that further study was needed. The study has now been completed, but
has not been released for public review. Some critics argue that FHA's non -committal
stance on this issue reflects what some consider a cozy relationship between the industry
and the FHA. That may be particularly evident if the FHA is relying upon the OAAA's
studies to support changes to allow digital billboards as Jerry Wachtel suggests. As the
Administration looks for ways to enhance its operating budget, billboards may indeed
become an integral part of highway infrastructure in America.
Given the questionable stance of FHA on this issue, it is helpful to consider the results of
other studies both in the US and abroad that have provided more definitive conclusions.
A 1994 study done by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, for example,
evaluated the impact of an electronic sign in Milwaukee along I-94. The study concluded
that "It is obvious that the variable message sign has had an effect on traffic, most
notably in the increase of the side swipe crash rate."
A more comprehensive study published in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention was
commissioned by the Swedish Transportation Administration. The study was carried out
by a team of German and Swedish researchers, who found that digital billboards keep
drivers attention off the road for more than two seconds. The study confirmed what
might otherwise seem intuitive — that the curiosity factor of drivers keeps them gazing at
digital signs for longer periods of time as they attempt to read the ever-changing
messages. The Swedish study built upon a well regarded 2006 Virginia Tech study
commission by NHTSA2' , which found that glances totaling more than 2 seconds for any
purpose increases near-crash/crash risks by at least two times. The study further found
that nearly 80 percent of crashes involve driver inattention within 3 seconds of the crash.
23 The tn, pact of Driver Inattention on
Near-Crash/Crash Risk An. AitaP sis Using the 100 -Car Naturalistic;,
Driy * Stu ffClata„ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2006
13
Finally, it also confirmed what a study commission by the Foundation for Outdoor
Advertising Research and Education found — that digital billboards seem to attract more
attention than static billboards. The FOARE study would not conclude any correlation
between digital signs and more accidents, but the Swedish study provided that
confirmation. So compelling was the Swedish study that the Swedish government
ordered all digital signs to be removed.
Digital billboards in Yakima illustrate the problem of extended gaze by the number of
messages that some signs entice drivers to read. A sign located on the southeast corner of
South I" Street and Nob Hill Boulevard, for example, contains 8 changing messages. A
sign at the corner of South 1" Street and Arlington Street contains 9 messages, and a sign
off Valley Mall Boulevard near Fiber Road contains an impressive 13 changing
messages!
It has taken the sequential findings of multiple studies to derive at the conclusion that
billboards create unsafe visual distractions. Each study appears to share common facts
that derive at intermediate conclusions regarding driver gaze habits. But it appears that
the author or commissioner of a given study has too easily dictated any final conclusions
over whether extended gazes result in more crashes (also as Jerry Wachtel suggests) The
Swedish study finally reached the conclusion that gazing at billboards in fact results in
more crashes. But the results should not be surprising. One might offer the familiar
adage, "This isn't rocket science" when considering whether it's a good idea to entice
people to watch video screens rather than the road while driving a vehicle.
That was precisely the point of the California Supreme Court in its landmark Metromedia
decision upholding San Diego's billboard restrictions:
"No matter what one's position on the sign and safety issue [is] one can find the
study to support it .... [D]espite the insights provided by statistical analyses, the
case for the hazards of private signs rests largely upon common sense and the
informed judgments of traffic engineers and other experts. The arguments are
complex and sometimes highly technical, but on the whole, the courts are
increasingly likely to conclude that regulation of private signs may be reasonably
expected to enhance highway safety." 4
That Metromedia case referenced an earlier decision out of New York wherein the court
declared,
"We hold as a matter of law that an ordinance which eliminates billboards
designed to be viewed from streets and highways reasonably relates to traffic
safety. Billboards are intended to, and undoubtedly do, divert a driver's attention
from the roadway. Whether this distracting effect contributes to traffic accidents
invokes an issue of continuing controversy. But as the New York Court of
Appeals pointed out, "mere disagreement" as to "whether billboards or other
24 (Dowds, Private Signs and Public Interests, in 1974 Institute on Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain,
p. 231.) Cited in Metromedia Inc. vs. City of San Diego.
14
advertising devices ... constitute a traffic hazard ... may not cast doubt on the
statute's validity. Matters such as these are reserved for legislative judgment, and
the legislative determination, here expressly announced, will not be disturbed
unless manifestly unreasonable. ,25
Considerations for Yakima
Billboards in Yakima are prevalent along its arterial corridors, particularly North & South
1St Street, Yakima Avenue, Nob Hill Boulevard and Fruitvale Boulevard. They are also
common in Yak t-na`'s low income neighborhoods and declining; commercialiindustrial.
areas lying east of 16 rh Avenue. These areas provide principle access to all other areas of
the city. And from the perspective of visitors, these areas define the city because except
for the 40th Avenue entrance off Highway 12, one cannot access any part of the City
without traveling through these neighborhoods. That is no doubt the reason the area is so
appealing to billboard interests. However, the deteriorating condition of these areas has
resulted in a negative image of the City and has likely deterred major new investment.
The city experiences high vacancy rates in its downtown and has a reputation of high
crime rates in its east side commercial and residential neighborhoods.
The city is taking active steps to improve neighborhoods and enhance these corridors.
Planned efforts include:
A new street cross section for North 1" Street including street trees and
landscaping, center island features and undergrounding of utilities.
An overlay sign code for North 1St Street.
• Submittal of a plan to clean up Nob Hill Boulevard.
Redevelopment of the mill site, including a focus on freeway corridor
enhancements.
0 A focus on code compliance of eastside neighborhoods.
0 Redevelopment of the downtown
The PowerPoint presentation on the built environment demonstrated how markedly
changed these areas would be if billboards and other superfluous fixtures, utility poles
and illegal signs were removed. However, removal of billboards can be costly to the city,
especially if they are located near federally funded highways where they enjoy the
protection of the American Highway Beautification Act (HBA).
The HBA will adversely affect the city's ability to beautify its highway corridors because
it allows removal of trees and other enhancing vegetation that would otherwise block
visibility of billboards. For example, the act prohibits the City from installing any
landscaping that would block from either side the view of the billboard located at the
25 (New York State Thruway Auth. v. Ashley Motor Ct. (1961) 10 N.Y.2d 151,218 N.Y.S.2d 640, 176
N.E.2d 566.)
15
city's entrance on North 1" Street. Such roadblocks to community renewal efforts will be
exacerbated as new billboards are allowed along or near Yakima's highway corridors.
Billboards are a lucrative business, and the industry will no doubt fight to both retain and
digitize its existing billboards in the City. The industry will also continue expanding its
product in Yakima under current codes. However, based upon the above analysis, we
find that billboards:
1. Adversely affect property values.
2. Provide virtually no property tax revenue.
3. Do not enhance the local economy (70% of businesses promoted on billboard ads
in Yakima are non -local businesses).
4. Proliferate in low income and declining neighborhoods.
5. Promote in low income neighborhoods addictive products like alcohol and
gambling (Virtually all of these ads are located in Yakima's low income
neighborhoods).
6. Suppress economic development.
7. Inhibit streetscape enhancement and allow for removal of streetscape landscaping.
8. Are directly linked to increased traffic accidents
9. Benefit primarily out-of-state industries (Clear Channel Advertising is based in
San Antonio Texas, Lamar Outdoor Advertising is based in Baton Rouge
Louisiana, and CBS Outdoor Advertising is headquartered in New York, New
York).
10. Are banned in nearly every larger eastern Washington city including, but not
limited to, Union Gap, Kennewick, Richland, Pasco, Wenatchee, Walla Walla,
Spokane, Spokane Valley, and Moses Lake.
It is therefore prudent for the City Council to consider the following options:
Option 1 - Amend the zoning code to prohibit new billboards, including new digital
billboards. This would include conversion of existing billboards.
Option 2 — Same as Option 1, but also include an amortization clause to eliminate
existing billboards that are not subject to the HBA.
Option 3 — Amend the zoning code to further restrict the height, size, and/or spacing
of billboards. A restricted size might be 96 square feet, and 30 feet high, and a 1,000
foot spacing requirement between any billboards.
Option 4 — Amend the zoning code to limit billboards to industrial zones and to
prohibit billboards within 660 feet of federally funded highways.
Option 5 — Any combination of Options 1 through 4.
As noted above, Yakima is one of the few cities in eastern Washington that yet allows
billboards. Given that Yakima is taking active steps to improve its market position with
I:
other cities, and recognizing the positive experiences of cities across that nation that have
enacted prohibitions on billboards, staff believes that Option 1 or 2 would put Yakima's
competitive marketing edge on par with other cities in the region.
17
Appendix "A"
Billboard locations in Yakima
� '�'
��,„�� Exisb Billboards
In
Appendix `B"
View from the Courts
- Billboard Usage of Public Highways -
1. "The success of billboard advertising depends not so much upon the use of private
property as it does upon the use of the channels of travel used by the general
public. Suppose that the owner of private property, who so vigorously objects to
the restriction of this form of advertising, should require the advertiser to paste his
posters upon the billboards so that they would face the interior of the property
instead of the exterior. Billboard advertising would die a natural death if this
were done, and its real dependency not upon the unrestricted use of private
property but upon the unrestricted use of the public highways is at once apparent.
Ostensibly located on private property, the real and sole value of the billboard is
its proximity to the public thoroughfares." 26
2. "The [outdoor advertising business] depends entirely for its success upon the
occupation of places along the sides of highways and near parks and similar
public places. Billboards are designed to compel attention. The advertising
matter displayed upon them in words, pictures, or devices is conspicuous,
obtrusive and ostentatious, being designed to intrude forcefully and persistently
upon the observation and attention of all who come within the range of clear
normal vision. The only real value of a sign or billboard lies in its proximity to
the public thoroughfares within public view. In this respect the plaintiffs are not
exercising a natural right; they are seizing for private benefit an opportunity
created for quite a different purpose by the expenditure of public money in the
construction of public ways and the acquisition and improvement of public parks
and reservations .''27
3. "Most of the respondents' arguments relating to their "use" of the land upon
which their signs are located are mere exercises in sophistry, for in no real sense
are the signs "used" upon the land on which they are located... [T]he signs are
used in a realistic sense only where the light reflected therefrom strikes the eye of
the users of the public streets or adjoining private propert�,,28
4. `Billboards and advertising signs are of little value and small use unless great
highways bring the traveling public within view of them, and their enhanced
value when they are seen by a large number of people was created by the State in
the construction of the reads and not by the signs' owners."29
26 Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. Rpt. 580, 609, (Phil. 1915), appeal dismissed, 248 U.S. 591 (1918).
27 General Outdoor Advertizing. Co. v. Department of Public Works, 193 N.E. 799 (Mass. 1935), appeal
dismissed, 297 U.S. 725 (1936).
28 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of Pasadena, 216 Cal. App. 2d270 (1963).
29 Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle, 55 A.D. 2d340 (1977).
19
Conformance of Watchfire Signs to OAAA/ISA Lighting Guidelines
The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) and the International Sign Association
(ISA) have recommended criteria for brightness standards for outdoor LED signs. Watchfire by
Time -O -Matic has validated that all products can comply with these guidelines.
The guidelines highlight the importance of ensuring appropriate brightness settings. Energy
conservation, community goodwill, and extending the life expectancy of the displays are all
goals of the criteria.
All Watchfire signs incorporate a sunrise/sunset calculation algorithm that uses the sign's
latitude and longitude coordinates to correctly dim the sign at dusk and brighten it at dawn in
several steps. An additional photocell option is available that will also allow the sign to dim in
response to severe overcast weather during the day.
LED sign brightness is usually specified in NITs or candelas per square meter. The
instruments for measuring NITs are expensive and not commonly available to sign companies
or communities. The new guidelines offer a means to specify the sign brightness using a foot-
candle meter, which is relatively inexpensive and more available.
Watchfire billboards are calibrated and shipped from the factory preset to maximum brightness of
300 NITS for nighttime operation and 7,500 NITS for daytime operation. During normal operation
an average of 30-40% of the pixels are on, so normal brightness is less than half of the maximum
on average.
The Brightness guidelines specify that the signs will not be brighter than 0.3 foot candles than
the ambient light levels at night at a specified distance. The distance depends on the size of
the sign. Since the specification is relative to conditions, the brightness of the surrounding area
is taken into consideration.
In most cases, the default settings on Watchfire signs meet these guidelines. Areas with little or
no ambient lighting may require additional manual dimming. This is a simple setting that can
be made at the factory or in the field to any sign manufactured by Watchfire past or present.
The settings are password -protected. The user cannot change the setting without assistance
from Time -O -Matic Support.
The default day settings of Watchfire signs also fall under the guidelines which indicate that
7500 NITs is needed to overcome the full sunlight.
The detailed ISA specification and measurement method may be downloaded from the ISA
website at this link:
http://www.signs.org/industryResources/TechnicalRegulatoryResources/BrightnessGuideforEle
ctronicMessa eCenters/tabid/745/Default.as x
Conformance of Watchfire Siena to 0AAA11SA Lighting Guidelines
The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) and the International Sign Association
(ISA) have recommended criteria for brightness standards for outdoor LED signs. Watchfire by
Time -O -Matic has validated that all products can comply with these guidelines.
The guidelines highlight the importance of ensuring appropriate brightness settings. Energy
conservation, community goodwill, and extending the life expectancy of the displays are all
goals of the criteria.
All Watchfire signs incorporate a sunrise/sunset calculation algorithm that uses the sign's
latitude and longitude coordinates to correctly dim the sign at dusk and brighten it at dawn in
several steps. An additional photocell option is available that will also allow the sign to dim in
response to severe overcast weather during the day.
LED sign brightness is usually specified in NITs or candelas per square meter. The
instruments for measuring NITs are expensive and not commonly available to sign companies
or communities. The new guidelines offer a means to specify the sign brightness using a foot-
candle meter, which is relatively inexpensive and more available.
Watchfire signs ship with the night brightness settings between 500-750NITs depending on
model. The day maximum brightness is between 7500 and 11000 NITs depending on model.
During normal operation an average of 30-40% of the pixels are on, so normal brightness is
less than half of the maximum on average.
The Brightness guidelines specify that the signs will not be brighter than 0.3 foot candles than
the ambient light levels at night at a specified distance. The distance depends on the size of
the sign. Since the specification is relative to conditions, the brightness of the surrounding area
is taken into consideration.
In most cases, the default settings on Watchfire signs meet these guidelines. Areas with little or
no ambient lighting may require additional manual dimming. This is a simple setting that can
be made at the factory or in the field to any sign manufactured by Watchfire past or present.
The settings are password -protected. The user cannot change the setting without assistance
from Time -O -Matic Support.
The default day settings of Watchfire signs also fall under the guidelines which indicate that
7500-10000 NITs is needed to overcome the full sunlight. Watchfire models that ship with
higher day settings can be adjusted down if necessary.
The detailed ISA specification and measurement method may be downloaded from the ISA
website at this link:
htt ./ .si ns.or /Industr Besources/Techn calRe ulato Resources/Bri htnessGuidefor le
ctronicMessageCenters/tabid/745/Default.aspx
Lighting Sciences Inc.
7826 East Evans Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 U.S.A.
Tel: 480-991-9260 Fax: 480-991-0375
www.li ghtin sciences. com
October 1, 2008
Report to: Outdoor Advertising Association of America
Subject: Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional
Billboards
Abstract
This report summarizes several research projects undertaken by Lighting Sciences, Inc.
(LSI) related to billboard lighting. The topics that have been addressed are:
Development of digital billboard luminance recommendations
A comparison of luminances of conventional billboards and digital billboards
"Sky Glow" lumens entering the night sky from conventional and digital
billboards.
Digital Billboard Luminance Recommendations
Lighting Sciences, Inc., has undertaken research to develop a method for specification of
luminance (brightness) limits for digital billboards based on accepted practice by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The recommendation is
extremely simple to implement and requires only a footcandle (fc) meter to be used.
The research establishes criteria for billboard luminance limits based on billboard -to -
viewer distances for standardized billboard categories. For example, a standard
billboard -to -viewer distance of 250 feet is used to establish the billboard luminance limits
for a 14' x 48' foot (672 sq.ft.) bulletin.
The recommended technique is based on accepted IESNA practice for "light trespass."
Previous outdoor lighting research has documented an established limit on the amount of
light arriving at a person's eyes to ensure that the source of the light is not offensive, or
worse, potentially dangerous. The technique is simple: the light level at the eye is
measured in footcandles and has an upper limit. The limit is low for areas that are
generally quite dark, but considerably higher in well lit urban areas.
A recommended specification for digital billboards is to use a limit of 0.3 fc over ambient
light conditions. To check if the level is acceptable, a footcandle meter would be held at a
height of 5 ft. (which is approximately eye height) and faced towards the billboard at the
desired billboard -to -viewer distance. A reading of 0.3 fc or less above ambient light
conditions would indicate compliance. It should be noted that the footcandle level
produced by the billboard is characteristic of the billboard only; because the value of 0.3
fc is above ambient, it is not affected by whatever the ambient level may be.
The standards set forth in the report are based on the worst-case scenario of a driver or
pedestrian viewing the display head-on (directly at a 90 -degree angle), while in practice
most displays are viewed at an angle. Since displays are generally viewed at an angle, the
luminance (glare) is substantially reduced.
Furthermore, the report provides values for billboard luminance of different color images
and notes that luminance levels are based on a worst-case scenario of an all -white
display, which is unlikely to happen, save for a malfunction. Knowing these values, and
having established a billboard luminance limit for a particular billboard, the allowable
percentage of dimming setting is also easily calculated.
The investigations and this report do not cover factors related to changing images and
billboard message movement. Issues that may be related to motorist attention are beyond
the scope of the work and use of the proposals in this study should be based on that
understanding.
ii. Comparison of Conventional and Digital Billboard Luminances
A study by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Lighting Research Center has measured the
luminance of typical conventional billboards and has developed the maximum value of
luminance that can be expected. LSI has compared the recommendations developed in
this report to the Rensselaer measured values. The digital billboards will be brighter, but
only slightly brighter, than the maximum luminance of conventional billboards.
iii. Sky Glow
Sky glow is caused by lighting at night entering the atmosphere and being scattered by
airborne particulates. Sky glow may result from the use of lighting fixtures that emit
light above a horizontal plane so that it enters the atmosphere directly. The effect also is
caused by light reflecting from lighted objects, such as a road surface, a building or a
billboard.
The study has evaluated the amount of light entering the atmosphere from a variety of
lighting installations. Measured in "sky lumens," the results allow a comparison to be
made of different lighting systems relative to sky glow. Specifically calculations have
been made to compare the sky lumens produced by conventional billboard lighting
systems, both three and four luminaire bottom mounted systems lighting a standard 14 x
48ft. billboard, to the sky lumens caused by roadway and parking lot lighting.
Various scenarios have been used for the roadway lighting, combining residential and
major highway lighting in a typical neighborhood. Areas have been considered that
consist only of roadway lighting, as well as areas that contain both roadway and parking
lot lighting.
The results of the study support a conclusion that the vast majority of sky glow is a
product of urban development. Even where full cut-off fixtures are used on all roadway
and parking lot lighting fixtures, and if there is an average of one billboard per square
mile, over 96% of the sky glow produced per urban square mile is from those sources and
not billboard lighting, for the conditions examined. For the examples considered, a single
three fixture billboard lighting system produces approximately 2 to 3% of the sky lumens
caused by roadway/parking area lighting in the example one square mile area. For a four
fixture billboard lighting system, the range becomes roughly 2.5 to 4%. These figures
can be prorated. For example, if there are two such billboards per square mile, the
percentages are doubled; if there is one such billboard per two square miles, the
percentages will be halved.
The exact percentages of sky glow are affected by the density of roadways/parking areas,
the type of lighting fixtures used and the lighting level provided, among other factors. It
is emphasized that the comparisons herein between billboards, roadway and parking lot
lighting do not and cannot provide an estimate of the actual percentage of sky glow
attributable to billboards. Significant sky glow is produced by multiple other sources
such as ball fields, car headlights, floodlighted monuments and buildings, and other
outdoor lighting sources. However, it is apparent that for the scenarios considered, the
contribution of billboard lighting to sky glow is small in comparison to that from
roadways and parking areas. Excluding these other sources, roadways and parking areas
produce 96 to 98% of sky lumens, compared to the 2 to 4% produced per billboard in the
example urban square mile.
Digital billboards operating at the luminance levels recommended in this report produce
much fewer lumens into the night sky than conventional bottom mounted lighting
systems. This is primarily due to the elimination of the external luminaires, but also is a
result of the characteristics of the billboard pixel design whereby light in upward
directions is reduced in comparison to light sent below the horizontal in the direction of
viewers.
Definitions
Luminance. Also known as photometric brightness, this is the "brightness" of the
billboard as seen from a particular angle of view. It is measured in candelas per sq.
meter, also termed "nits."
Illuminance. This is the amount of light from the billboard landing on a distant surface.
It is measured in footcandles (fc) or lux.
Intensity. This is the candlepower, or concentration, of light emitted in a given direction
from the entire billboard.
Reflectance. This is a measure of the proportion, or percentage, of light falling on a
surface that is reflected by the surface.
SECTION A — DIGITAL BILLBOARD LUMINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Al. Introduction
This report has been prepared for OAAA under the contract issued to Lighting Sciences
Inc. for the development of luminance (brightness) recommendations for digital
billboards under nighttime conditions. Extensive investigations have been conducted into
methodologies that could be used to develop such recommendations, specifically
addressing environmental impact and possible visibility effects on drivers.
The following approaches can be used:
1. Develop billboard recommendations based on the control of possible glare to
which drivers may be subjected.
or 2. Produce recommendations founded on environmental impact, addressing the
subject known as light trespass.
Either of these methods can be used as a viable approach to providing an acceptable
practice for the control of digital billboard appearance, though the first method has
disadvantages. In analyzing these methods, strict attention has been paid to satisfying the
following:
1. The needs of the general public, including drivers.
2. The requirements of local government personnel, who may wish to
incorporate language into ordinances related to the use of digital billboards.
For this, the procedures must be straight forward and enforceable.
The needs of OAAA members, who require effective use of digital billboards,
which in turn requires adequate brightness for clear visibility.
The two approaches are addressed below.
A2. Method 1, Specifications Based on Driver Glare
Drivers on roadways at night where virtually any form of lighting is provided are
inevitably subjected to glare. Glare may be, for example, from oncoming headlights,
street lights, or commercial lighting, including billboards. There are recommended limits
to the amount of glare that can be produced by vehicle headlights (from the U.S.
Department of Transportation) and by roadway lighting (from the American National
Standards Institute and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America—IESNA.)
In particular, the extensive procedures that have been developed by IESNA can, in
theory, be used to produce limitations on digital billboard luminance that will ensure that
any glare problems created for drivers will be relatively minor, in the order of glare often
produced by a street lighting installation.
Lighting Sciences has conducted detailed investigations into this approach, based upon
publication ANSI IESNA RP -8-00, "American National Standard Practice for Roadway
Lighting." The basic procedures for such a method would be to specify an allowable
average billboard luminance level that would ensure that the glare it produces does not
exceed certain limits. These limits would be based on the level of highway lighting that
is present. For example, higher billboard luminances would be allowed where a high
level of street lighting is provided. Publication RP -8-00 classifies highways into many
different types, and there is a set of recommendations for the lighting of each type. Thus
using these principles for digital billboard specifications, there would be many different
recommended billboard luminance limits, dependent upon the form of roadway lighting
provided in the area.
After much consideration, Lighting Sciences does not recommend this approach for
establishing digital billboard luminance limits. The reasons include the following:
1. Publication RP -8-00 describes 14 different roadway classifications. These are based
on different roadway types (for example, freeways, major roadways, local roadways).
There is a further breakdown based on the level of pedestrian activity, which may be
high, medium or low. Basing billboard luminances on this wide range would produce
a complex system of specifications that would lack the simplicity and clarity that is
our goal.
2. Digital billboards are frequently visible from numerous vantage points. This creates
an issue of deciding which of the 14 different categories would be applicable if
different levels of roadway lighting exist in a general area.
3. There is further complexity in determining the amount of glare produced by a digital
billboard using the methodology of publication RP -8-00. The amount of glare is
affected not only by the luminance of a digital billboard, but by its distance from the
driver. What distance would be selected to perform the necessary calculations when
the driver might view the billboard from a wide range of distances?
4. The amount of glare is affected also by the location of the billboard with respect to
the driver's line of sight. This changes as the driver looks in different directions and
as his location changes. What billboard position would be used?
5. The extent of any glare produced is dependent upon the billboard size.
Recommended limits of luminance, if based on glare control, would be different for
each billboard size.
Thus it can be seen that, because of all the variables involved, the establishing of realistic
billboard luminance limits based on the RP -8-00 methodology would be exceedingly
complex. Even if simplifications were introduced, there would be problems in deciding
which luminance limit would be applicable to a given billboard. Checking and
enforcement similarly would be highly problematic. For these reasons, Lighting Sciences
Inc. has not developed and is not recommending a billboard luminance specification
system based upon glare limitations. However, in conducting the detailed study of this
method and the second method that follows below, it has been determined that if the
method provided below is adopted, billboard luminances will be such that producing a
significant amount of glare to drivers from a single digital billboard is unlikely. Situations
where a multiplicity of such billboards appear in the driver's field of view simultaneously
require further research. More evaluation of this topic is suggested using documents
produced by other organizations.
A3. Method 2, Specification Based on Light Trespass
A3.1 Method Overview
"Light trespass" is a term used in the outdoor lighting industry to describe light that falls
outside of the area that is primarily intended to be lighted. For example, if the lighting
system for a shopping center parking lot causes light to spill over into an adjacent
residential neighborhood, this would be considered to be light trespass. High levels of
light trespass, as well as being wasteful of energy, may have an appearance that is
objectionable. Publication TM -11-00 of the IESNA provides a table of limits of light
trespass for various "lighting zones." These zones range from "no ambient electric light"
(dark rural areas) to "high ambient electric light" (typically high use urban areas.) The
limits are expressed in terms of the illuminance in footcandles that the light source in
question can produce at a person's eyes, measured above the ambient lighting that is
produced by all other sources of light. The limitation values were determined from an
extensive human factors research project into the levels of light trespass that may or may
not be considered objectionable in the various zones. Application of the limits keep light
trespass to a low level that is unlikely to be considered objectionable to most persons.
Digital billboards are not the form of lighting that TM -11-00 was developed to limit. In
fact, digital billboards are specifically intended to be seen over a wide area, much of
which may be remote from the billboard itself. Nevertheless, the principles of TM -11-00,
in terms of the calculation method and the limits it provides, can be examined to
determine whether the methodology can form a useful method of specifying billboard
luminance limits.
Numerous calculations have been performed to evaluate billboard luminance in terms of
the TM -11-00 procedures. The calculations involved are simpler than those discussed
above for RP -8-00 procedures, as they simply involve determining the illuminance in
footcandles (fc) at the location of the eyes of a viewer. (Referred to as "eye
illuminance.") TM -11-00 provides four different eye illuminance limits depending on the
lighting zone, E 1 to E4, ranging from very low ambient electric light to high ambient
electric light. See table 1. (A description of each type of ambient electric light zone is
included in Appendix B.)
Table 1
Eye Illuminance Limits (Light Produced by Billboard, above Ambient
Zone Eye Illuminance Limit fc
E1 Very low ambient electric light 0.1
E2 Low ambient electric light 0.3
E3 Medium ambient electric light 0.8
E4 High ambient electric light 1.5
To simplify billboard luminance specifications, it is proposed that all billboard luminance
limits, no matter where a billboard is located, are governed by the values given in the
above table for zone E2. This will then produce a uniform method that does not require
the lighting zone to be known. The logic for choosing zone E2 is based on two
considerations. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that digital billboards will ever be used in
areas described as zone E1. E1 applies to inherently very dark rural areas where there is
almost no electric lighting, such as national parks. Digital billboards are likely to be used
in zones E2 through E4. By using the limitations specified by IESNA for zone E2, the
specifications are very stringent; any billboard meeting the E2 limits will be satisfactory
for the higher ambient light conditions of zones E3 and E4. On this basis, while any eye
illuminance value could be used, this report recommends using only that provided for
zone E2.
Providing that a method is available to calculate the billboard luminance that will
generate a certain illuminance at the eye of a viewer, the illuminance limits of TM -11-00
can be converted to billboard luminance limits. The conversion formula is provided
below. It must be noted, however, that this method is not totally straightforward, for
there are variables that must be considered for any given billboard, also discussed below.
A3.2 Determining the Maximum Allowable Billboard Average Luminance
The system for relating billboard luminance to the illuminance produced at the eye is
briefly summarized in this section. A more detailed coverage of this topic, and lighting
units and terms in general, is provided in Appendix A.
Billboard luminance (which refers to the average luminance or brightness of billboard) is
expressed in candelas per square meter, cd/sq.m., sometimes termed "nits." The
illuminance produced at the eye, considered as landing on a vertical plane at the eye, is
designated E,, and is measured in footcandles.
To determine the maximum billboard average luminance, L, that can be allowed so as to
meet a given illuminance limit at the viewer's eye, E,, in footcandles, the following must
be know:
• Area of billboard = S sq. ft.
Distance from billboard center to observation point = D feet (as measured
from a plan view. Differences in height of the billboard and viewer normally
can be disregarded, as can lateral angle effects from the billboard face.)
Allowable maximum billboard average luminance, L =
1.0.761 E„
S
cd./sq.m. (nits)
1
For example, to determine whether a billboard meets a particular limit for the IESNA
publication TM -11-00, the following steps are taken:
1. Select the applicable lighting zone. It is proposed that E2, an area with a low level of
electric lighting, be selected as a standard.
2. Find the applicable eye illuminance limit from table 1. If zone E2 is assumed, this
will be 0.3 fc.
3. Determine the billboard size. Assume for example a billboard measuring 10 ft. 6 ins.
x 36 ft., giving an area of 378 sq. ft.
4. Assume a distance to the viewer. Use 200 ft. (See discussion below).
These values are entered into formula 1 above.
Allowable maximum billboard average luminance
10.76.2002 •0.3
378
= 342 cd/sq.m. (nits)
It should be noted that the footcandle level produced at viewer's eyes by a billboard is
independent of the ambient lighting in the area. Footcandles are strictly additive. If a
billboard produces 0.3 fc at the eye and the ambient illuminance is 1.0 fc, the total
illuminance at the eye is 1.3 fc. If the ambient level is 2.0 fc, the total illuminance is 2.3
fc. The above methodology establishes the illuminance at the eye produced only by the
billboard, independent of the ambient level. The actual measured illuminance is always
the sum of that produced by the billboard plus the ambient level.
A3.2.1 Viewer Distance
The distance from the billboard to the viewer, D in the above formula, has a significant
effect on the calculated allowable maximum billboard luminance. Billboards are
typically viewed over a range of distances, and so the choice of the value of D will be
somewhat arbitrary. A short distance such as 100 ft. is probably too small for normal
situations, and can produce a very low luminance limit. On the other hand, a very large
distance such as 1000 ft. will rarely be applicable because viewers will normally be
closer when reading the billboard.
It may be questioned whether a short distance should be used as a standard to guard
against possible glare effects produced at the eyes of a person driving past a digital
billboard. Considering this, as a driver moves closer to a billboard that is positioned to
the side of the roadway and the driver is viewing the road ahead, the lateral angle from
the driver's line of sight to the billboard increases. This angular effect causes any glare
that the billboard may produce to reduce significantly. (Reference: American National
Standard for Roadway Lighting, publication ANSUIESNA RP -8-00, section A7. Glare
reduces as the square of the angle from the line of sight.) Further, as this angle increases,
the light intensity (candelas) directed toward the driver's eye decreases, as shown by
photometric testing of a sample billboard. (Lighting Sciences Inc. test report no. LSI
21628). This effect also contributes to the reduction in glare as the driver approaches and
then passes the billboard. These two effects more than offset other factors in determining
the glare produced at the driver's changing location: that is, glare actually reduces as the
driver's distance to a billboard that is off the side of the road becomes smaller, assuming
attention is on the road ahead.
In discussions with members of the advertising industry, it is apparent that billboard size
and viewing distance are related. Larger billboards are used to attract viewers at a greater
distance, while small billboards are provided where the observer is fairly close. On this
basis, the viewing distances, D, provided below are suggested for use with the formula,
based on four prevalent standard billboard sizes:
If there is a specific reason why a value of D other than as given above should be applied
for a particular billboard installation, this different value may be substituted accordingly
in the formula. It should be noted, however, that use of the above distances for the
various billboard sizes, and the billboard luminance values so produced, have been field
evaluated and appear to be reasonable.
A3.2.2 Allowable Average Luminance and Billboard Size
For any given billboard size, formula 1 can be used to compute the allowable average
luminance by incorporating the suggested distance value from table 2. The results for the
standard dimension billboards are provided in table 3.
Table 2
Pro
osed Viewer Distance Values, D
Billboard Size
Billboard
D
Dimensions (ft
ft.
Small
11 x22
150
Medium
10.5 x 36
200
Lar e
14 x 48
250
Very large
20 x 60
350
If there is a specific reason why a value of D other than as given above should be applied
for a particular billboard installation, this different value may be substituted accordingly
in the formula. It should be noted, however, that use of the above distances for the
various billboard sizes, and the billboard luminance values so produced, have been field
evaluated and appear to be reasonable.
A3.2.2 Allowable Average Luminance and Billboard Size
For any given billboard size, formula 1 can be used to compute the allowable average
luminance by incorporating the suggested distance value from table 2. The results for the
standard dimension billboards are provided in table 3.
Table 3
Maximum Level of Digital Billboard Average Luminance
Candelas per Sq.M. (Nits)
Proposed Standard
(Based on IESNA Lighting Zone E2)
Billboard
Dimensions (ft.)
D**
ft.
Luminance
(Cd./sq.m.)
11 x22
150
300
10.5 x 36
200
342
14 x 48
20 x 60
250
350
300
330
*Based on an illuminance produced at the viewer's eye of 0.3 footcandles.
** Distance measured at ground level to observer facing the billboard perpendicularly
A3.3 Digital Billboard Photometric Testing
A small sample digital billboard was supplied to Lighting Sciences' laboratories in
Scottsdale, Arizona for photometric evaluation. This was a Prism electronic display with
a 20mm pixel spacing as commercially produced in November 2006 by Young Electric
Sign Company. This was tested using a model 6440 goniophotometer in accordance with
the approved methods of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Tests
were run for the device displaying entirely white, red, green and blue colors respectively.
The white color is not formed by illuminating white LED's but rather by a combination
of red, green and blue LED's. The white setting that was used was 6800K.
The digital billboard was programmable for different levels of dimming. Tests were
conducted to measure the luminance at 10% dimming steps from 100% down to 10%,.
It was determined that the actual luminance reduction achieved using the various
dimming steps accurately corresponded to within a few percent of the dimming settings
indicated on the controller.
Data from the series of tests allow the calculation of the luminance of any digital
billboard color for full intensity or any level of dimming. Of specific interest were the
luminances of a white display because this is the maximum luminance color, as it is
generated by the combination of the red, blue and green LED's.
A3.4 Determining the Allowable Dimmer Setting
If a billboard luminance limit has been established by the methodology described above,
the photometric data can also provide the dimming setting to be used.
Results of the testing indicated that the digital billboard produced a maximum average
luminance of approximately 7000 cd/sq.m. when displaying a completely white (6800k)
image at full power. In the above example, to limit the luminance to 342 cd/sq.m. the
dimmer setting can be computed as follows:
% dimmer setting=Allowable luminance X100
.
I.,umi.nance at 100% Setting
-----2.
342 X100
7000
= 4.9%
This example is for a medium billboard size measuring 10.5 x 36'. The dimmer setting
will be different for other billboard sizes because the allowable luminance changes per
table 3. Table 4 presents the dimming settings calculated in an equivalent manner for
the standard billboard sizes.
Table 4
Suggested Dimming Settings
Example for the Digital Billboard as Tested
Proposed Standard
(Based on IESNA Lighting Zone E2)
Billboard
Dimming
Dimensions (ft.)
Setting
11 x 22
4.3%
10.5 x 36
4.9%
14 x 48
4.30/6
20 x 60
4.7%
It should be noted that table 4 is applicable only to the digital billboard that was tested.
Different types of billboards will produce different results, and therefore require separate
photometric testing. Dimming settings will change from one model to another because
each may produce a different maximum luminance.
A3.5 Non-white Billboards
If the digital image will never be totally white, higher % dimming settings can be used
while still meeting the luminance limit. The actual measured luminances for the sample
billboard measured in 2006 for a 100% luminance setting for different colors are:
White (6800k) 7000 cd/sq.m.
Red 1500 cd/sq.m.
Green 5100 cd/sq.m.
Blue 700 cd/sq.m.
For a normal image that includes multiple colors, the average luminance for a 100%
setting will depend on the proportion of colors in the mix. Software and instrumentation
is available to analyze billboard luminance when the billboard is being programmed.
A3.6 Monochrome Displays
The same methodology applies to monochrome displays as to the color displays
described above. For such displays, Equation 1 is used to calculate the allowable
maximum billboard average luminance. To calculate the dimming setting using
equation 2, the luminance at the 100% setting for the monochrome display is entered.
This value will typically be less than for the white display of a colored billboard, and
therefore a monochrome billboard can be run at a higher percentage dimming setting, all
other factors being equal.
A3.7 Adoption of the Method
This method uses the established and recommended procedures of IESNA to develop
billboard luminance limits. The procedure can be adopted by referring to the limits of
IESNA publication TM -11-00 as provided in table 1 above, with the suggestion that
lighting zone E2 values be used as a standard. Billboard -to -viewer distances are
proposed to be as provided in table 2 above.
Table 3 summarizes the recommended maximum billboard luminance values based on
tables 1 and 2. These can be adopted directly into an ordinance or set of guidelines.
The limitations of TM -11-00 were established through research conducted by Lighting
Sciences Inc. under a contract from the Lighting Research Office of EPRI (Electrical
Producers' Research Institute). The basis of TM -11-00 was subsequently provided to
IESNA to form the publication. Field use of the values for various forms of outdoor
lighting confirm that the values are realistic and prevent undue annoyance to a majority
of viewers, and thus appear to have formed a satisfactory basis for specifying such
lighting limits.
The procedures outlined in this section of this report, method 2, specifications based on
light trespass, are recommended by Lighting Sciences Inc. for evaluation and possible
subsequent adoption by OAAA.
A3.8 Enforcement
After a billboard is installed, there will be cases where it is desired to evaluate the
billboard luminance to ensure that it does not exceed the specified value. This
procedure is extremely simple and requires only a footcandle meter.
The billboard luminance specification is based on ensuring that a certain footcandle
level (above ambient) created by the billboard is not exceeded at a chosen distance.
Thus all that is needed to check compliance is the measurement of the footcandles level
at that distance with the billboard on and off. The footcandle meter would be held at a
height of 5 ft. (which is approximately eye height) and aimed towards the billboard,
from a distance as selected from table 2. If the difference in illuminance between the
billboard -on and billboard -off conditions is 0.3 fc, then the billboard luminance is in
compliance. When conducting this check, the meter should be at a location
perpendicular to the billboard center (as seen in plan view) as this angle has the highest
luminance.
This check should include the measurement of an all white image displayed by the
billboard to evaluate the worst case condition.
A4. Summary of Proposed Method
Specification based on the light trespass limits adopted by IESNA in publication TM -11-
00 appears to provide a manageable and technically viable technique.
It is proposed to use the IESNA recommended limits for environmental lighting zone
E2, low level electric lighting, as a standard. This limits the maximum illuminance
produced by the billboard and measured at the eye of a viewer to 0.3 footcandles over
ambient. It is further proposed that the viewer be positioned from the billboard at
ground level and facing in a direction perpendicular to the billboard. The distance will
be dependent upon the billboard size.
Under these conditions, to meet the 0.3 fc limitations, the maximum allowable billboard
average luminance will be as given in table 3 for various standard billboard sizes. The
percentage dimmer setting, expressed as a percentage of the billboard maximum
luminance, can be calculated from the table 3 luminance value, based on the maximum
luminance of a billboard being 7000 cd/sq.m. or some other known value.
Because these values have been derived from IESNA publication TM -11-00, which in
turn is based on an extensive human factors research project, adoption of such values
should satisfy the requirement that most persons will not find these billboard luminances
to be objectionable.
SECTION B — BILLBOARD LUMINANCE: DIGITAL VERSUS
CONVENTIONAL
The foregoing has provided recommendations for the average luminance limits for
digital billboards. It is of interest to compare these to the luminance levels found with
conventional billboards. Such billboards are most commonly lighted using luminaires
designed for this specific purpose, manufactured by the Holophane Company. Most
installations consist of a series of fixtures that use 400 watt Metal Halide lamps.
Typically a 14 x 48 ft. large billboard is lighted by four such fixtures mounted along the
bottom edge of the billboard. Some billboards, employ a lighting system using only
three bottom mounted luminaires. Other designs may use top mounted lighting in
various configurations. An optical refractor or lens is used on each luminaire to direct
light onto the billboard, which increases the billboard luminance.
The luminance of conventional billboards has been addressed in a study by the Lighting
Research Center of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that was sponsored by the New
York State Department of Transportation. A technical memorandum has been
developed titled "Evaluation of Billboard Luminances" dated March 31, 2008. This
memorandum states the following:
"... it is probably reasonable to expect that the luminance of a conventional billboard
would not be likely to exceed about 280 cd/sq.m. during the nighttime (assuming typical
lighting practice as represented by the IESNA and industry recommendations, and by
the lighting systems used on the billboards that were measured in the field)..."
The report indicates that the value of 280 cd/sq.m. (nits) is consistent with clean
billboard lighting systems using new lamps. This is also the condition used for testing
the digital billboard at Lighting Sciences' laboratories as referenced above.
It is thus anticipated that digital billboards operated in accordance with the
recommendations developed above, (300 to 342 nits, depending on size), will be
brighter, but only slightly brighter, than the maximum luminance of conventional
billboards.
SECTION C — SKY GLOW
C1 Introduction
A further factor, "sky glow," has been addressed in relation to both conventional and
digital billboards.
Sky glow is caused by light at night entering the atmosphere and being scattered by
airborne particulates. Sky glow may result from the use of lighting fixtures that emit
light above a horizontal plane so that it enters the atmosphere directly. The effect also is
caused by light reflecting from lighted objects, such as a road surface, a building or a
billboard.
It is highly desirable to reduce sky glow in order to preserve dark skies. This is an
environmental concern, as well as a significant factor influencing the ability of
astronomers to study the night sky.
The amount of light entering the atmosphere from a variety of lighting installations has
been evaluated. Measured in "sky lumens," the results allow a comparison to be made of
different lighting systems relative to sky glow. Specifically calculations have been made
to compare the sky lumens produced by a typical billboard lighting system to the sky
lumens caused by roadway and parking lot lighting. Extensive work was conducted for
conventional billboards, then later work compared newer digital billboards to the
conventional billboards.
Various scenarios were used for the roadway lighting, combining residential and major
highway lighting in a typical neighborhood. Areas were considered that consist only of
roadway lighting, as well as areas that contain both roadway and parking lot lighting.
It is emphasized that the comparisons herein between billboards, roadway and parking lot
lighting do not and cannot provide an estimate of the actual percentage of sky glow
attributable to billboards. Significant sky glow is produced by multiple other sources
such as ballfields, car headlights, floodlighted monuments and buildings, and other
outdoor lighting sources. These have not been included in the analysis as quantitative
measures of the sky glow that these produce are not available.
C2.1 Conventional Billboards
A 14 x 48 ft. billboard was evaluated using both three and four bottom mounted
Holophane "Panel Vue" fixtures. Each was equipped with a 400 watt metal halide lamp
rated at 40,000 lumens. Photometric test data were obtained from the manufacturer and
computerized calculations were performed.
All calculations were based on a 0.70 Light Loss Factor, or Maintenance Factor, to
account for the reduction of light output as the lamp ages and as the fixture collects dirt.
For both the three and four fixture lighting systems, the following quantities were
calculated:
Total uplight lumens emitted by the group of fixtures
Total lumens intercepted by the billboard
Total lumens intercepted by the billboard underboard
Total lumens emitted upwards by fixture that do not strike the billboard or
underboard. (Direct sky lumens)
Total lumens reflected upwards by the billboard
Total lumens reflected upwards by the underboard
Total lumens reflected upwards. (Indirect sky lumens)
The manufacturer's data were used directly; no additional shielding was assumed for the
lighting fixtures.
Results obtained for the three and four fixture systems in terms of total sky lumens are as
follows:
3 fixture system: 23,415 lms
4 fixture system: 31,535 lms
These values will be affected by the reflectance of the billboard face material, which is
dependent on the lightness/darkness of the material. An average value of 25% was used,
derived from laboratory measurements of sample billboard face materials. A reflectance
value of 2.5% was used for the underboard.
No account is taken in these calculations of the angular direction of the uplight lumens as
they enter the atmosphere, which is likely to have some influence on the degree of sky
glow that is produced.
C2.2 Roadway Lighting
For this study, billboard lighting was compared to roadway lighting. While it is
recognized that there are many sources of nighttime light other than roadway lighting,
this form of lighting usually constitutes a major source of uplight lumens.
LSI has produced roadway lighting designs for three different roadway types and has
computed resultant uplight lumens, as follows:
Local roadway. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
specification is 0.7 footcandles average maintained lighting level, with a 6:1 average
to minimum uniformity. (i.e. The minimum footcandles at any point will not be less
than one sixth of the average.)
Collector roadway. IESNA specification is 0.9 fc maintained, 4:1 uniformity.
Major roadway. IESNA specification is 1.3 fc maintained, 3:1 uniformity.
In all three cases, "medium pedestrian conflict" per IESNA was assumed.
A Light Loss Factor or Maintenance Factor of 0.70 was used, so as to be equivalent to the
same factor used for the billboard calculations.
For each roadway, lighting system design has been conduced using a flat glass "full cut
off' fixture, and the older style "cobra -head semicutoff' fixture with glass bowl lens. The
full cut off fixture allows no light to escape above the horizontal, while the semicutoff
fixture emits a few percent of its total lumens above the horizontal.
Most existing roadways, particularly where the lighting was installed 15 or more years
ago, will use the glass bowl lens. Because of a desire to control sky glow, many agencies
have now switched to full cut-off optics. In any urban area, both types of fixtures are
likely to be present. By analyzing roadway lighting with each of these fixture types, a
realistic range of possibilities is examined.
For all designs, various pole heights were investigated. Each design was optimized to
acquire the maximum pole spacing that can be used while meeting the IESNA lighting
specifications. Thus the design procedures were similar to those used by typical roadway
lighting designers.
For each lighting system, the following were calculated, all on the basis of a single mile
of roadway:
Total lumens falling on the roadway
Total lumens falling on the ground outside of the roadway
Total lumens reflected upwards from the roadway
Total lumens reflected upwards from the ground outside the roadway
Total lumens emitted upwards directly from the fixtures. (This quantity is zero for the
cutoff fixture.)
Typical known reflectance values were used for the road surface and areas outside the
roadway.
Results of the computation, given in sky lumens per mile are as follows:
Local roadway, full cutoff fixture:
Local roadway, semicutoff fixture:
Collector roadway, full cutoff fixture:
Collector roadway, semicutoff fixture:
Major roadway, full cutoff fixture:
Major roadway, semicutoff fixture:
25,837 sky lumens per mile
38,079 sky lumens per mile
47,652 sky lumens per mile
64,071 sky lumens per mile
153,355 sky lumens per mile
259,910 sky lumens per mile
C2.3 Comparison of Conventional Billboards and Roadway Lighting
Based on the above values, the sky lumens produced by one billboard using a three
fixture lighting system are approximately equal to the sky lumens produced by:
0.91 miles of local roadway with full cutoff fixtures
or 0.49 miles of collector roadway with full cutoff fixtures
or 0.15 miles of major roadway with full cutoff fixtures
or 0.61 miles of local roadway with semicutoff fixtures
or 0.37 miles of collector roadway with semicutoff fixtures.
or 0.09 miles of major roadway with semicutoff fixtures
The sky lumens produced by a four fixture billboard lighting system are roughly equal to
the sky lumens produced by:
1.22 miles of local roadway with full cutoff fixtures
or 0.66 miles of collector roadway with full cutoff fixtures
or 0.21 miles of major roadway with full cutoff fixtures
or 0.83 miles of local roadway with semicutoff fixtures
or 0.49 miles of collector roadway with semicutoff fixtures.
or 0.12 miles of major roadway with semicutoff fixtures
As another way of comparing the data, the total roadway lighting per square mile of an
urban area can be computed and compared to billboard lighting. An example city square
mile has been checked (in Denver, CO). For a typical urban built-up area, the following
roadway lengths were present in the selected 1 sq. mile:
Total length of local roadways: 21 miles
Total length of collector roadways: 1 mile
Total length of major roadways: 1 mile
The total sky lumens assuming all roadways are lighted for this square mile have been
calculated and are:
For all roadways lighted by full cutoff fixtures: 743,584 lumens
For all roadways lighted by semicutoff fixtures: 1,123,640 lumens
If a single billboard is situated in this example square mile, the percentage of total sky
lumens created by the billboard lighting is as follows:
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 3 fixture system,
full cutoff fixtures: 3.1 %
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 4 fixture system,
full cutoff fixtures: 4.2%
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 3 fixture system,
semicutoff fixtures: 2.1%
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 4 fixture system,
semicutoff fixtures: 2.8%
when roadways are lighted with
when roadways are lighted with
when roadways are lighting with
when roadways are lighting with
Other assumptions for the density of roadway lighting and number of billboards can be
similarly determined. For example, if the roadway lighting is as above, but the density of
billboards is halved, the percentage sky glow from the billboards with be halved.
In certain urban areas, the roadway lighting usage may be greater than in the selected
example area. There will likely be other sources of sky glow such as vehicle headlights,
floodlighting for buildings and sports facilities. In such conditions, the percentage
contribution of a given amount of billboard lighting to the overall sky glow will be
reduced. In yet other areas, roadway lighting may be less than that illustrated above, and
the proportion of sky glow produced by the billboard will be higher. Further efforts
under an extended research program could analyze large urban areas and survey lighting
usage by types.
C2.4 Parking and Roadway Lighting
As another example scenario, calculations have been made for a 1 square mile area
consisting of both roadway lighting and parking lot lighting. In this example, a parking
lot size of one quarter mile square has been included. The total length of local roadways
has been reduced to 16 miles. The parking lot is assumed to be lighted to an average
level of 1.5 footcandles.
Because the parking lot is lighted to a higher level than the roadway it replaces, and
because a larger area is being lighting, the total sky lumens are increased versus the
earlier example that assumes the presence of roadways only.
The modified values of total sky lumens are:
For all roadways and parking areas lighted by full cutoff fixtures: 836,687
lumens
For all roadways and parking area lighted by semicutoff fixtures: 1,273,028
lumens
If a single billboard situated in this example square mile, the percentage of total sky
lumens created by the billboard lighting is as follows:
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 3 fixture system,
areas are lighted with full cutoff fixtures: 2.8%
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 4 fixture system,
areas are lighted with full cutoff fixtures: 3.8%
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 3 fixture system,
areas are lighting with semicutoff fixtures: 1.8%
Billboard sky lumens as % of total, for 4 fixture system,
areas are lighting with semicutoff fixtures: 2.5%
when roadways and parking
when roadways and parking
when roadways and parking
when roadways and parking
It should be noted that in this analysis, all lumens reflected from surfaces or emitted
upwards directly from the fixtures are assumed to enter the sky. This is probably true for
most billboard lighting systems. For roadway and parking lot lighting, however,
reflected light may be blocked by objects such as buildings or trees. If this blockage is
50%, for example, the above percentage contribution of billboard lighting to sky lumens
will be doubled. Nonetheless, even assuming a scenario where all roadway and parking
lot lighting sources are fully -shielded fixtures, the sky glow caused by billboards is a
small percentage of the overall sky glow, under the conditions evaluated.
C2.5 Evaluation Methodology
The above provides an evaluation methodology based upon certain assumptions; One
billboard is situated in a one square mile area, and various scenarios for roadway and
parking lot lighting are considered. For analysis of sky glow effects for an actual city,
however, it is important to extend the analysis to cover the entire city, taking into account
the actual billboards present and other lighting systems throughout the area. Preferably
such an analysis will also include sources of sky glow such as ballfields, vehicle
headlights, floodlighting installations and other forms of nighttime lighting.
It should further be noted that the percentage sky glow contribution from multiple
billboards is not additive. For example, if one billboard in a one square mile area
produces 2.5% of the sky glow, 40 billboards in the same area will not produce 40 x 2.5 =
100% of the sky glow. The net percentage actually will be lower.
C2.6 Billboard Lighting Trends
The foregoing analysis is based on the lighting of 14 x 48 billboards using systems of 3
or 4 400 watt metal halide fixtures per billboard. Trends in lighting systems are towards
lowering the number of fixtures used, and to the use of lower wattage lamps. Effective
lighting systems are available using 3 or even 2 fixtures per billboard, and in some cases,
320 watt lamps are used. Sky glow will be reduced very approximately in proportion to
the total lumens used.
C3 Digital Billboards and Sky Glow
The scenario to be evaluated for digital billboards in relation to sky lumens is completely
different from conventional billboards: There is no reflecting billboard surface and no
exterior luminaires, as the digital pixels themselves are the light sources. Some light
from the pixels is emitted in directions below the horizontal where it provides the
advertising message to viewers and some light is emitted above the horizontal where it
enters the atmosphere (unless blocked by trees and structures).
The photometric test data for the digital billboard sample tested at Lighting Sciences'
laboratories has been examined, and calculations have been performed to determine the
sky lumens that will be generated for a typical 14 x 48 ft. digital billboard.
It is significant to note that the digital billboard as tested is designed to direct the majority
of its light below the horizontal, in the direction of the viewer location. This is achieved
by the use of horizonal louver blades that are angled downwards and that run between
adjacent rows of pixels. This is illustrated in figure 1; in this figure, the lengths of the
arrows represent the actual intensities of the light rays in the various directions as
documented in the laboratory photometric test report. For example, light intensity
emitted 20 degrees below the horizontal is more than double the intensity emitted 20
degrees above the horizontal. This has the obvious effect of reducing sky lumens versus
that which would be produced if light above and below the horizontal were equal.
Elimination of bottom mounted exterior luminaires commonly used for conventional
billboards play a very significant role in the reduction of sky glow. For the example
scenario detailed earlier in this report, where a four luminaire bottom mounted system
produces 31,535 sky lumens, roughly 90% of those lumens are emitted into the sky
directly from the fixtures.
For the digital billboard calculations, it was assumed that no dimming of the light output
occurs due to age, as the computerized controls can be set to overcome any LED light
output degradation with time. A Light Loss Factor of 0.90 was assumed to account for a
possible 10% loss due to the accumulation of dust and dirt.
For the conventional billboard discussed above, a 25% average reflectance was used in
the given example. A similar "message" was assumed for the digital billboard
calculations, i.e., a billboard luminance was assumed that would be created by an array of
colors equivalent to that used for the conventional billboard analysis, rather than an all
white display. It was further assumed that a 14 x 48 ft. billboard would be operated at
4.3% of full output at night, as recommended in table 4 above. For these example
conditions, the amount of light directly emitted into the atmosphere by the digital
billboard is 2260 lumens. This compares to the value of 31,535 sky lumens for the
example conventional billboard lighted by four bottom mounted luminaires, and is 8% of
that amount.
Digital billboards can be seen to offer a major opportunity to reduce sky glow if they are
replacing conventional billboards that employ a bottom mounted lighting system. This is
a result of the elimination of the external luminaires and the direct sky lumens they
produce, and also because of the design of digital billboards whereby less light from the
billboard face is directed upward versus downward.
Ian Lewin Ph.D., FIES, L.C.
November 26, 2008
Effect of Horizontal Louver Blades
Billboard
Length of Arrows Represent Light Intensity
Uplight is Partially Shielded
Appendix A
Figure 1
Lighting Units and Terms
Several terms are useful in describing the light characteristics of digital billboards. See
figure Al.
Billboard Luminance, L
or Brightness
(Candelas per sq. meter
or nits)
Eye
Intensity, I
or Candlepower
(in Candelas)
Billboardproduces
Illuminance
Billboard Area, S
at viewer's eye
(in Footcandles)
Distance, D
Figure Al
Candlepower. This is the intensity, I, of light produced by the billboard in a particular
direction, and it is measured in "candelas." For example, a billboard of a certain size will
emit a certain intensity of light in a direction perpendicular to its face. The intensities
emitted in other directions will be less than that in the perpendicular direction. If the
billboard displays a white image, this intensity will be higher than if the billboard face is
any other color.
Candlepower does not change significantly with distance, providing the atmosphere is
clear; the intensity continues as the light rays move in a straight line until they strike a
surface.
Luminance, L, often called "brightness," relates to the overall appearance of the
billboard. It is the candlepower emitted per unit area, and is expressed in units of
"candelas per square meter," or cd/sq.m. Say a billboard that has an area of 2 square
meters produces 400 candelas when viewed from a direction perpendicular to its face,
then its luminance is 400/2, equal to 200 cd/sq.m. The term "nit" is also used. Such a
billboards is said to have a brightness of 200 nits.
The formula relating the billboard size, luminance (or brightness) and the candlepower it
projects is:
Candlepower (in candelas) = Luminance (in candelas/sq.m. or nits) x billboard area (in
square meters)
or I = L x S
Al,
(L is in nits, S is in sq.m.)
Illuminance, E. This is a measure of the amount of light that is intercepted by an object
that is illuminated by the billboard. Illuminance is measured in "footcandles," and is
dependent on the distance from the billboard, as well as the candlepower the billboard
produces. If a viewer is looking at the billboards, the illuminance at the viewer's eye, E,,,
can be found using the "Inverse Square Law," which states
Illuminance (in footcandles) = Candlepower (in candelas)
Distance' (in feet)
or E, �z
D
A2.
The value of I from equation 1 can be substituted into equation 2 to give
LxS
Ev :z
A3.
Equation 3 is very useful because it relates billboard size (S), billboard luminance (or
brightness) (L), and gives the footcandles (Ev) that will be produced by the billboards at a
distance, D feet. It can be rewritten:
L is in nits, Ev is in
footcandles,
D is in feet, S is in sq. meters
Otherwise, if the area of the billboard, S, is in square feet, the equation becomes
A5..
footcandles,
l.�
10.76 D' D,.
S
L is in nits, E,, is in
D is in feet, S is in sq. feet
The illuminance, E, can be measured easily with a relatively inexpensive footcandle
meter at a measured distance D feet from the billboard. Figure A2. The area of the
billboard, S, presumably is known. Inserting these values of E, D and S into equation 5
allows the luminance, L in nits, to be calculated.
_w , Eye
Footcandle Meter
Figure A2. Measuring Illuminance (in Footcandles) at the Viewer's Eye Location
Nit Gun
Figure A3. Measuring Billboard Luminance (in Nits) Using a Nit Gun Aimed at Billboard
Location
L, the billboard luminance, can also be measured with a "nit gun", which is a luminance
meter that can be pointed at the billboard. Figure A3. However such devices are more
expensive and less readily available than a footcandle meter.
Because of the simple relationship as given in equation A5, billboard luminance
specifications can be written in terms of footcandle limitations at a certain distance. For
compliance checking, if the footcandle value produced by the billboard and measured at a
prescribed distance is at or below a specified level, then it will be known that the
billboard luminance meets the desired limitation.
Appendix B
Description of the Lighting Environmental Zone (from IESNA publication TM -11-
00)
E1. Areas with intrinsically dark landscapes. Examples are national parks, areas of
outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas where inhabitants have expressed a
strong desire for strict limitation of light trespass.
E2. Areas of low ambient brightness. These may be suburban and rural residential areas.
Roadways may be lighted to typical residential standards.
E3. Areas of medium ambient brightness. These will generally be urban residential areas.
Roadway lighting will normally be to traffic route standards.
E4. Areas of high ambient brightness. Normally this category will include dense urban
areas with mixed residential and commercial use with a high level of nighttime
activity.
Note: The above descriptions are being considered for revision by IESNA at the time of
writing this report. The categories are not changed, but the descriptions are more
extensive for clarity.
OAAA Recommended Brightness Guidelines
A. OAAA Guidelines: The OAAA recommended brightness criteria for digital
billboards is as follows:
Light produced by a digital billboard should not exceed 0.3 Footcandles over
ambient light levels.
• Measurement should be taken utilizing a Footcandle meter from the following
distances (perpendicular to the face of the digital billboard):
Posters: 150 feet 10'6x36 Bulletins: 200 feet
14x48 Bulletins: 250 feet 20x60 Bulletins: 350 feet
The measurement distances are based on the average minimum viewing
distances for each type of billboard.
• Digital billboards must have automatic dimming capability.
B. Basis for the Guidelines. These guidelines are based on recommendations by
lighting expert Dr. Ian Lewin, Lighting Sciences Inc. (Scottsdale, AZ), in a March, 2008
report to the OAAA. Dr. Lewin developed brightness criteria to meet the following
general guidelines:
a Appropriately Legible Copy. Digital advertising copy is appropriately legible and not
overly bright.
• Simplicity. Provide a guideline that can be easily implemented and enforced.
Measurement of the ambient light level of the sign on and off is conducted by a
footcandle meter. If the difference in measurements is less than 0.3 footcandles, the
digital billboard is in compliance.
Established Guidelines. The criteria are based on established scientific
methodology and established industry standards from the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA) publication TM -11-00 "light trespass" theory which
is an accepted standard in the lighting industry.
w Flexibili! . Ensure proper brightness levels in a variety of lighting environments.
C. Additional Issues/Clarification
Automatic Dimming Capability. A digital billboard must be able to automatically
adjust as ambient light levels change. An automatic light sensing device (such as
photocell or similar technology) should be utilized for adjusting the digital billboard's
brightness. Sunset -sunrise tables and manual methods of controlling brightness are
not acceptable as a primary means of controlling brightness.
Brightness Measurement Methodology. The brightness standard requires the use
of a Footcandle meter (also known as a "Lux meter"; -$100-1000). A Footcandle
meter measures the amount of light arriving at the meter (illuminance), as opposed
to an absolute measurement of the amount of light emanating from a light source or
light sources (luminance). A Footcandle is a measure of lumens (light rays) that fall
on one square foot area; Lux is the metric equivalent of a Footcandle.
In contrast, a Candela Meter / NIT Gun ($3,000) measures the amount of light
emanating from a specific light source (luminance). A NIT gun measures candelas (a
measure of luminance or brightness) per meter squared (also known as "NITS"),
which is a measure of the brightness emanating from a specific light source. It
excludes ambient light (which may include light from many sources) from the
Hardware photocell enables a Watchfire® sign to adjust sign brightness for the periodic change of
outdoor ambient light: as the amount of outdoor light changes, the brightness of the sign changes. The
relationship between ambient light and sign brightness is directly proportional. During periods of low
ambient light, sign brightness will be low. Throughout phases of high ambient light, sign brightness
will be high. Below is a chart showing the relationship between outdoor lighting conditions and sign
brightness.
100
cn
in
t 50
rn
m
rn
(n 25
0
Billboard Brightness with Outdoor Lighting Conditions
Night Sunrise/Sunset Overcast/Rain Cloudy Sunny
Outdoor Lighting Conditions
Looking at the graph above, 100% sign brightness translates to 7000-7500 NITs for Watchfire®
Digital Outdoor signs. 100% sign brightness equates to 9000-10000 NITs for On Premise signs.
Watchfire® has designed its software to react gradually with the photocell; changes in sign
brightness are based upon an average of photocell readings, not instantaneous values. This is extremely
useful during periods of brief cloud cover. The sign will not dim as soon as a cloud passes overhead.
Instead, the sign software will take an average of the overall lighting conditions outside and adjust the
sign brightness against that average. In addition, there are 100 brightness levels in the photocell. This
provides excellent reaction to the variation in outdoor ambient light.
Traffic Injury Prevention
Effects of electronic billboards on driver distraction
ONE
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 1 of 21 Traffic Injury Prevention
5�
59
60
Tania Dukic', Christer Ahlstrom', Christopher Patten', Carmen Kettwichz, Katja Kircher'
'Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Link6ping, Sweden
2Light Technology Institute, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Corresponding author:
Christer Ahlstrom
VTI
S-58195 Link6ping
Sweden
Phone: +46 13 204009
Email: christer.ahlstrom@vti.se
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Traffic Injury Prevention
Objective: There is an increase in electronic advertising billboards along major roads which may
cause driver distraction due to the highly conspicuous design of the billboards. Yet, only limited
research on the impact of billboards on driving performance and driver behaviour is available. The
Swedish Transport Administration recently approved the installation of twelve electronic billboards for
a trial period along a four -lane motorway with heavy traffic running through central Stockholm,
Sweden. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of these electronic billboards on visual
behaviour and on driving performance.
Method: A total of 41 drivers were recruited to drive an instrumented vehicle passing four of the
electronic billboards during day and night conditions. A driver was considered visually distracted when
looking at a billboard continuously for more than two seconds, or if the driver looked away from the
road for a high percentage of time. Dependent variables were eye -tracking measures and driving
performance measures.
Results: The visual behaviour data showed that drivers had a significantly longer dwell time, a
greater number of fixations and longer maximum fixation duration when driving past an electronic
billboard compared to other signs on the same road stretches. No differences were found for the
factors day/night, and no effect was found for the driving behaviour data.
Conclusion. I +IIIpbo an is have an on gaze behaviouii by aflm Vung mo I (:aurid VM)drg u. 'CO aurces th aII
reati.dar fuaai`ilir sug ns. 1tvh f)E.0 9he pDHH)oaids , tf act attention too n.ruua:,l , that is, whethca duly auc: a
traffic safety hazaal, n, ri�uroa Vaca ainsvv eed a,:,unurda.us�va y I msed on the p.,i u.se unt data
Visual distraction, electronic billboard, traffic safety, field study, eye tracking.
:oma
a
SD 2
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 2 of 21
Page 3 of 21
31'
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
5F
59
60
Traffic Injury Prevention
Electronic billboards are designed to attract attention using static, dynamic or full -motion pictures. The
more conspicuous and eye-catching the images are, the more likely they are to attract attention. In
Sweden and unlike many other countries, the Swedish Transport Administration has been very
restrictive in that roadside billboards and electronic billboards have not been permitted. In 2009,
however, the administration gave temporary permission to the installation of twelve roadside
electronic billboards, eight of which were installed at the time of the study. The trial period was subject
to road traffic safety evaluation where driver distraction was of particular interest.
For 50 years electronic billboards have been allowed in many countries such as USA, Australia,
Canada and New Zealand. In order to control and limit the potential negative effect on driver
behaviour, different rules and guidelines have been established. The guidelines differ between
countries and states, but typically they restrict the placement of the signs (i.e. avoid intersections), the
luminance of the signs (i.e. avoid dazzling), the size of the board and the length and font size of the
message (Cairney & Gunatillake, 2000; Farbry et al., 2001; Transit, 2008).
Driver distraction in general is believed to be a contributory factor to many accidents (Klauer et al.,
2006; NHTSA, 2009; Olson et al., 2009). Modern electronic billboards are able to display dynamic
messages either as slideshows or as animations or videos. The intent of these dynamic messages is
to trigger bottom-up processes from the visual -sensory channels in order to capture the driver's
attention. %�„st pue9ous woiks havci nO Ule to atlii:wte 4r)cieased ciash i at S tO
k)pIIII4;aoids peii SE(M fti! uagq , 1952, 2, l ant;Ed f & Tantaf la, 200 7.1v':A ce, 2fzd ,), h)(:)W EWelFTiu!+ii y et aI
(2001) loi..uu.ifi an i f r sp,o�,,JMlltr skk swi,e ci .)shes and ieai eiid cias es, Resultsfrom
simulator studies show that the dynamic content as well as the placement of the billboard with respect
to its surroundings have an influence on driving performance, i.e. greater variability on lateral lane
position or slower speed while passing the billboards (Chattington et al., 2009; Crundall et al., 2006;
Hughes & Cole, 1986). Eye -tracking studies confirm the attention grabbing nature of electronic
billboards (Beijer et al., 2004; Crundall et al., 2006; Smiley et al., 2005; Young & Mahfoud, 2007;
Young et al., 2009). A recent simulator study by Edquist et al. (2011) showed that billboards affected
visual scanning, caused increased reaction times to road signs and increased the number of driver
errors. Moreover, novice and older drivers were more affected. In another simulator study, Bendak
3
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentraI.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Traffic Injury Prevention
and AI-Saleh (2010) found that road stretches with billboards caused more lane deviations and more
occasions of recklessly crossing dangerous intersections.
A two-dimensional framework for attention selection in driving has been proposed by Trick and Enns
(2009) where the first dimension accounts for top-down (goal -driven) processing versus bottom-up
(stimulus -driven) processing, while the second dimension accounts for automatic processing versus
controlled processing. Automatic processes can be reflex (bottom-up) or habit (top-down). These
automatic processes are innate and are triggered by certain stimuli in the driving environment.
Controlled processes can be exploratory (bottom-up) or deliberate (top-down). In the context of
electronic billboards, the mechanism that has the greatest influence on the driver is reflexive attention
selection (automatic/bottom-up). Reflexive responses cannot be disengaged and at best the negative
effects can be minimised by intentional inhibition (Trick & Enns, 2009). Also, if the driver is interested
in the advertisement, deliberate attention selection may occur (controlled/top-down).
Driver inattention has been defined as "insufficient, or no attention, to activities critical for safe driving"
(Regan et al., 2011). This implies that whether a driver has been distracted or not can only be
determined in retrospect, at least if "safe driving" is defined as the absence of crashes or critical
situations. Based on Trick and Enns framework, a glance towards a billboard can have different
reasons. The driver may employ a routine scanning behaviour to assess the traffic situation
continuously. Noticing the billboard, the driver may choose to have a closer look, while having a
mental picture of how the traffic situation is likely to develop. Thus, the glance is planned and unlikely
to result in a dangerous situation. According to the definition above, such behaviour would not be
considered distracted. Only if the driver's attention is absorbed by the billboard more than originally
intended, the driver may become distracted. Additionally, the billboard may also attract the driver's
attention in a reflexive manner, such that the glance can be described as involuntary. This may occur
in all kinds of situations, including those in which averting the glance from the traffic scene is likely to
lead to insufficient uptake of information. As it is difficult to separate intended from reflexive glances
based on eye movement measurements, a more pragmatic definition was employed in the present
study, which builds on the duration and frequency of glances directed towards the billboard.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of electronic billboards on drivers' visual behaviour
and driving performance in a realistic field setting.
:/U'
59
60 4
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 4 of 21
Page 5 of 21
Traffic Injury Prevention
AMMMMMMM
The data were collected during a field study performed on a motorway in Stockholm, Sweden, in the
fall of 2010. The study was approved by the local ethics committee in Linkoping (2010-309-31).
F°3airflciipant
In total, 41 drivers participated in the study. Their mean ± sd age was 42 ± 8 years and they had held
their driving licence for 22 ± 9 years. Twenty participants drove between 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (daylight
conditions) and 21 participants drove between 6.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. (night-time conditions).These
hours were chosen to avoid rush hours. All participants gave their informed consent and the local
ethics committee approved the study.
Criteria for the recruitment of participants were that drivers should be between 35 to 55 years old,
drive at least 5,000 km/year and drive several times a week. The recruitment process was done in two
steps. First, a randomised sample of 200 drivers was acquired from the Swedish vehicle register.
Based on this selection twelve drivers agreed to participate in the study. In a second step, the
remaining drivers were recruited via an advertisement on the Swedish National Road and Transport
Research Institute's website.
tiirriu llli and Apparatuis
Visual behaviour was measured with a head -mounted eye tracker (IView, SMI, Teltow, Germany). An
instrumented vehicle, a Volvo V70, was equipped with a data acquisition unit (VBox, RaceLogic,
Buckingham, U.K.) to measure vehicle dynamics, and with a camera (MobilEye, Amstelveen, the
Netherlands) to record the lateral position arra Ilongitu6riaheadway. All signals were sampled at
50 Hz.
Four electronic advertisement billboards were investigated in the study. The Swedish Transport
Administration had constrained how the advertisements were to be displayed, for example, no video
messages were allowed. In practice, the billboards changed the message every seven seconds which
results in three to four different advertisements while passing the billboard. One of the billboards is
J illustrated in Figure 1. In addition to the four electronic advertisement billboards, another seven traffic
59
60 5
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentraI.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
59
60
Traffic Injury Prevention
signs were included in the study for comparison. These include three overhead gantries showing
navigation information, two guide signs and one bus lane sign. Furthermore, one large static paper
billboard sign was included. These signs were all located in the vicinity of the electronic billboards to
ensure that the traffic conditions were comparable.
Insert figure 1 about here
There are some distinct differences between the electronic billboards and the other signs in the study:
The billboards are lit, while the other signs are retro reflective, which most likely makes the billboards
brighter. The message on the billboards is changed every 7`h second, which makes them somewhat
dynamic, as each driver will see a number of changes on approach. In addition, the billboards are
bigger than most regular traffic signs, which also increase their bottom-up attractiveness.
EMsign and Procedure
Light condition (daylight / night time) was treated as a between -subjects factor whereas type of sign
(electronic billboard / conventional sign) and mad �t`etdh (sti etd,, ii "'B ')Op l oz a d, O eta l o 2 i efoi a
WIIVacrw d, stiek!r � 3 aftei, U: iIIIII d) were treated as within -subjects factors.
The participants were welcomed at the office and started out by filling in an informed consent form.
Then, the calibration of the eye tracking system was performed in the vehicle before the drive. The
participants got accustomed to the car and to the eye tracker while driving from the office to the
motorway where the actual experiment took place. The experimental route was 40 km long and took
approximately 40 minutes to complete, depending on the traffic density. The participants received
navigational instructions from an experimenter present in the car.
The participants were not informed about the purpose of the experiment until after the drive. Instead,
they were told that the aim of the experiment was to investigate whether the eye tracking equipment
could be used in real traffic and under different weather conditions.
na yse
Driving behaviour was analysed in terms of mean speed, standard deviation of lateral position and
minimum time headway. Since the traffic environment and the surrounding traffic changed
continuously over time, it is important that baseline values were sampled in close proximity of the
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 6 of 21
Page 7 of 21
bu
59
60
Traffic Injury Prevention
billboards. Therefore, the performance indicators were calculated based on data from three different
road stretches in the proximity of each billboard. The stretch corresponding to the electronic billboard
started where the sign became visible (at 750 m, 450 m, 650 m and 700 m for the four signs) and
ended at the location of the sign. The other two stretches had the same length as the billboard stretch
and were located just before and just after the billboard stretch. The distances indicating when the
advert became visible were determined based on the helmet mounted camera on the eye tracker, and
may underestimate the true distance since the camera has limited resolution and does not show
everything in the visual field. Road stretches with a mean velocity below 50 km/h were excluded from
the analysis.
Gaze analyses were carried out in BeGaze 3.0 (SensoMotoric Instruments, Teltow, Germany). In this
software the areas of interest, that is the four electronic billboards and the seven other signs, were
marked in the recorded video stream of each driver. Gazes and glances towards these highlighted
areas were then automatically quantified. In this study, visual behaviour was analysed in terms of four
different performance indicators: (i) dwell time, defined as the accumulated total time that the
participants looked at a sign; (ii) visual time sharing, the percentage of time that the driver looked at a
sign, defined as the dwell time divided by the exposure time; (iii) number of fixations, the total amount
of fixations directed towards a sign and (iv) maximum fixation duration, the duration of the longest
fixation directed towards a sign. Exposure time is defined as the duration from when the sign became
visible until the vehicle passed the sign, excluding the time when the line of sight was obstructed by,
for example, surrounding traffic. Fixations were detected based on a dispersion algorithm built into the
analysis software, with a minimum fixation length of 80 ms and a maximum dispersion of 100 pixels.
The statistical analyses involved two -factor ANOVAs with interaction terms, using the factors time -of -
day (daytime vs. night-time) and sign (billboard vs. control sign). Visual behaviour was analysed in
two steps. It has to be noted that not all drivers looked at all signs. In the first analysis step the
percentage of drivers who looked at billboards and the percentage of drivers who looked at control
signs was determined. Gaze -based µphi r;,ii Ti ai ir; Vndl :ift is could only be computed for those
instances in which a driver had looked at a sign. It was decided to calculate one PI value per sign,
which equals the mean of all instances in which a participant had looked at this particular sign. The
analysis of variance was then conducted based on each sign, which could either be an electronic
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Lw
59
60
Traffic Injury Prevention
billboard or a control sign, and which could have been looked at during daytime or during night-time.
The factors were treated as "between -subjects", as the glances which each sign attracted stemmed
from different participants for the time -of -day factor, and could stem from either the same or different
participants for the sign -type factor.
ANOVAs were also conducted for driving behaviour, but with the factors time -of -day and road stretch
(stretch 1 — billboard, stretch 2 — before billboard, stretch 3 — after billboard). Separate analyses were
performed for the four billboards since the preconditions, for example the speed limit, differed
between the billboards. Missing values were present in the driving behaviour data as well, partly due
to data acquisition issues but also since a lead vehicle was not always present.
All analyses were carried out in Matlab 7.11 (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA) and all tests used a
significance level of a = 0.05.
In the present study, a driver is considered to be visually distracted when looking at a billboard for
more than two seconds with a single long glance or if the driver looks away from the road for a high
percentage of time. The first criterion is based on the observation that long glances away from the
road are detrimental for traffic safety (H.T. Zwahlen, Adams, Jr., et al., 1988). In the second criterion,
the threshold for "high percentage" is set as when the dwell time is equal to or exceeds (exposure
time +12)/9. This threshold stems from naturalistic driving studies where it has been found that the
odds ratio for a crash is larger when the driver looks away for more than two seconds during the past
six seconds or, alternatively, for more than three seconds during the past fifteen seconds (Klauer et
al., 2010)..11 By Ilaieshuld c:u>caeH tirnc. '�" bine a 12)/9, is sa nnp0 y the:Ilkie ai 9wmfion 11'iat
COIIIW4 fa flit two ,c:rm,tiiaa1:es ,...,1wc1111ii,ne c xIaosuia, and dv fl! fim = , eMpo!,LWC.
Wh ol't" dwffl111 ficilc:
Page 9 of 21
59
60
Traffic Injury Prevention
The percentage of drivers who looked at the various signs is shown in figure 2. When aggregating the
different signs into the two groups electronic billboards (S1 — S4) and other signs, it becomes clear
that significantly more participants looked at the billboards (F(1,18) = 13.3, p < 0.05) than to the other
signs. However, there is no significant difference between daytime and night-time (F(1,18) = 0.5, p =
0.47). "No tracking" indicates data loss which may be due to makeup, strong sunshine, reflections in
the participants'eyeglasses or any other factor that interferes with the eye tracker.
Insert figure 2 about here
The differences in visual behaviour between the factors time -of -day and sign are presented in table 1.
When drivers passed an electronic billboard, as compared to other signs, the dwell times were longer
(F(1,18)=16.4, p<0.05), the number of fixations were greater (F(1,18)=18.6, p<0.05) and the
maximum fixation duration was longer (F(1,18)=5.7, p<0.05). However, no significant effect on visual
time sharing behaviour was found (F(1,18)=1.8, p=0.19). No significant differences were found in the
visual behaviour variables between daytime and night-time, nor were there any significant interactions
between the two factors. Boxplots for the different gaze behaviour variables and for all signs are
presented in Figure 3 and estimated marginal means, divided by the factors time -of -day and sign, are
presented in Figure 4.
Insert table 1 about here
Insert figure 3 about here
n 1a:a zd 1hen vVere 71i fbmki i is to fl,111.,iin q daytime and 6duiung ni,;',Ofl fiium���
Ca:aiti�a ;Iponr ;l 1 q nunm bel ; fol, tho oU'Cr ,kirIS �v i^� 23 fix,dl ans (hi°Ming mi.aytlind and 4tGXatuoris ��IulIf
rr gh'ut tir°n . There were six fixations on the four electronic billboards that lasted for more than two
seconds (range 2.1-3.5 s). Vhese Rx Ati,arr,: +A tnm) Miff,�ir n1 diiareni nmi a�aren r.1o,,t;uidua14��a;t
,ar%:WgSl �,41 i+aw dS In comparison, such long fixations only occurred once in total
for the seven other signs. I uguie 5 shows that 1hei,e ava7rc fuve + ases U �at,, r �siS:�o Ally
distia ,led ,�r cor dinit t,„ lVri* a gwuA,fl rlinv ;limng c0ci'i a &r1u, two o thy• ek:l on case!:"
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Traffic Injury Prevention
coir'9clo ued, INs a,!c.is aapa to nne r l°: �ti w ied a,Wane s Outside ide lhh ds ll,m;.91on a ouri�d au ie s , I e. c SII"a.b^ u.au�e
tVrnes bc�
Page 11 of 21
Traffic Injury Prevention
1997). This is an indication that drivers either ignore the signs already when passing them, as their
top-down script tells them that those signs are not relevant at the moment, or that they process their
content on a shallow level, without lasting memory traces. This is completely meaningful for traffic
signs, both from the drivers' perspective and from the perspective of the road administration who set
up the signs. For billboards this is different. Here the obvious wish of the producer is to attract
attention and to create lasting memory traces. This means that signs must be visually conspicuous
and attract attention long enough and intensively enough for passers-by to store them to memory.
Our d al.0 show that 11ar.Ir� 01P l',n,.ards, I � � ns I Irls �,e�ui7,�Pwa ,a,., tin
ii f;aa,l : tlu,4r:t r'rnxau;,. r Il�ar.7�,, ,> llniain iii,.r raClrrui ;ic.
surp I isn siru e lherc`a is son niP' IiIIa":,; Iew laa la::,nl< a eve IY Sa:�Venlhn sncoIId.I.his I°>,.roQicIis lr kr II I'I i
a mil 1pi, lnlso 6arnrM(c rill lt;aftu S,flety ct;.lin���ains and le(J aCS'iS f10111) lv7ro V)l1 irra;.ald Miaa�is ;am.i wns
,;I„3c.lfimi by 0-11D S-Ww disa i:.Rr+;uc4N:finiiiistir;aliaaiI 4b,-o3ed nn til ifl olid 9!,P Ifir 94:,pavved hay fl, iitinot illelnrwiit�s"
tltV nlr its frnia i Pho I�)iA dlNe, enr cyrdc icrlgf� vra°casld "-arolc,.ahiy hnoavr^ 1esi.iftrd In an s, ghdy
di4 fcicicl n�.atr airae A Io nger ryc,lle Iellglh rYnai w s IliaI,i R-x)alyds moll ,,hilt to liradlkloll,al skills
nrinoiroas n I`°iictlnawr rvna ,,ugc r k:', v+ri err,-,r7'1:o.a,4y ;n1Vmv 4ullll ii�noll on vir o o. A fuithei rnfitmiracinr flha�P
rr,>,aaslKnd troill rr lcl;:ali a~nain7lroll<aiinls v.Fla�s 11i'ov 'Rh c tansoici�ii N, t^wocn Yo OnC.luirnodIlan thnc
ibeginnilig Iwo iris -;nxqe,s Wet Si;I,:aaai ilwa I:ay 1a9and,�t g r,to :'k ua_� I Irian was 'Pow id to a':; a4ase
,�m'n,lc' di: yr t fol ilur^ I'CXY Iiva:;a': r,fra k) a -Dr r,,,t i l)e
rti;trar,la,ai7;iii,, vr;;i;�,rv,,i,:;fil�,.;Iil�,^ amrai..ilc:tiir'i9u,rlran,r�vu9uaC,
ti nry,l6oln was Iliel efol a °alllei rut ,an that'tv,ro cnin7urir[�rcl aV icr7a; ss .abges 1r•,,Ilk)wu;:d c ira.r:tly - lel a ,ach other.
Our data also show that the billboards attract the glances of more drivers than the other signs do,
which speaks for a reflexive component in the glance behaviour, according to the framework by Trick
and Ennis (2009). The next question is whether this reflexive component is strong enough that it
endangers safe driving or not. Is the drivers' gaze inadvertently drawn to the billboards, or can drivers
ignore the signs if necessary? As can be deducted from Figure 2 a substantial number of drivers did
not look at the billboards at all, which is a strong indication that they actually can be ignored. We
cannot know whether drivers actively ignored the signs, willing themselves not to look at them (Hallett,
1978), or whether drivers did not notice the signs at all. If they actively ignored the signs, this could be
due to a top-down component of traffic requiring attention, or to the drivers' having learnt the position
of the signs during earlier trips, which led to the drivers' making an active decision not to look at the
presented advertisements.
59
60 11
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Traffic Injury Prevention
For the investigated performance indicators, no differences were found between daytime and night-
time driving. Theoretically it should be assumed that the billboards would be more conspicuous at
night, as they appear brighter, but still, drivers did not look at the billboards more or for longer periods
of time than during daytime. One reason might be an increased top-down pressure to fixate on the
road in low visibility conditions. Another reason could be that the drivers chose to ignore the billboards
in order to resist glare.
As the drivers' glances do not appear to be drawn to the billboards invariably, it can be assumed that
drivers have a choice, at least to a certain extent, whether to look at the billboards or not. If drivers
consider it safe to do so, is it still dangerous? Especially during night-time there could be other issues
that are not caught by the performance indicators investigated here. As the billboards are rather bright
in comparison to standard signs, there can be a concern about glare, due to the high contrast to the
surrounding environment. Unfortunately we did not have the opportunity to measure the luminance of
the electronic billboards. However, drivers did not avoid looking at the billboards at night-time more
was i
g daytime, Ilar'klhtne ,,a i,.oa l paia;;h a;: to c aiAs 9:onstatet allk,, gllmu.
than durin da ime, uiuc4ic�,!atpuuc flan+w'[' illrc ,w
:igure t sli�::ws that ; ueuaaue ghaItco!s IIa atlie;;Jod atthe btilba' aids fltai7 et Ihauuw sl g9as ..p II,If, couVd V'�e
r t,w t^ the fc,l fl,)M ,a 6 1wet v,,rho Iloc`: <s ,at the Oa IIbc anJ I�zecont,ies interested in dine uYv.,s. agau Seviaa iruap
gll,ai,.ur c.r, urup;:ht ta14lb(M taa the Inessaac e CoI'll IJa teIIS, ara iki^��hi� way r-uar:d t,u iii,uu�i'i`iiclent a9:4entlon tro
traffic due to a ,d,)lft of o ally ,4 x .�uh.�iowi i� iin I �Ig wsl fir, stx ;° seven ,,t �g two s i�wa:au�u�;t;��a
g t e�.ut;a1 < Il:aiaa:.a.,,� a ae c:¢;^eulr:c
aea ile ;ac,h4llly diu earta at at the and ur.r four of these si;a cases ,es Nggh pevf:��::,lls cat :gp aurce
a iiveirslon as et e 4.w;, i ed wlth respect ;apeect to die 2 11 11 6 to ut ua u.. Y5 saec a )i tela wa e.
No consistent significant changes in driving behaviour with respect to speed, lateral placement of the
vehicle or headway could be found between the phases before the billboard was visible, while it was
visible and after it was passed. This finding is not completely unexpected, as this type of behaviour is
rather automated. While no driving related impairments could be measured, it is still possible that
latent decrements were present. It is theoretically possible that performance was reduced somewhat
when drivers looked at the billboards intensively, but not enough to lead to conflicts. It is also possible
that drivers would have had delayed reaction times and an impaired capability to detect divergent
behaviour of other road users, making the long glances a catalyst for traffic conflicts. On the other
hand, it might also be the case that performance was not reduced, as the drivers still might have kept
JtJ
59
60 12
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 12 of 21
Page 13 of 21
Traffic Injury Prevention
enough resources directed at the traffic to perform unaffectedly. How driving behaviour and gaze
behaviour would change in more or less complex situations than the one under examination here
needs to be investigated in future studies.
The data can be interpreted in the way that those drivers who are understimulated by the traffic
situation look around for entertainment, which is provided by the billboards. If this notion can be
corroborated, the phenomenon might be used to steer drivers' attention in the desired direction in
situations where it can be expected that drivers are likely to get bored, as situational stimulation is
low. This could be the case in long tunnels, on motorways or long country roads with low traffic
volumes.
The data were collected during real driving, thereby ensuring high external validity. The head
mounted system used for eye tracking allowed gaze target detection, which made the glance
evaluation reliable. However, the percentage of tracking loss was quite substantial, with losses of
around 30% of the participants for some of the signs. Due to time and budget restrictions it could not
be investigated whether those losses varied systematically with other variables that might have
influenced the drivers' propensity to look at the billboards.
Furthermore, the drivers were not required to stay in a certain lane, as their driving behaviour should
be as natural as possible. This means that trucks in adjacent lanes could obstruct the view of the
billboards for some drivers, but not for others. This issue is in part taken care of by using the actual
exposure time, that is, the time that the driver was physically able to see the sign, as a dimensioning
factor for the relevant PI.
The participants in this study received their navigational instructions from the experimenter present in
the car, which implies that there was only a limited need for the participants to look at signs with
navigation information. Consequentially there should be no or only very little top-down activation to
search for navigation signs, while other traffic signs like speed limits or lane restrictions still provide
useful information. All drivers were familiar with the road including the billboards, which might have
influenced how they reacted to the billboards, but also to the other signs. Top-down processing is
likely to have a higher impact on a familiar route, as drivers do not need to look for signs and
information the way they would have to on an unfamiliar route. This increases the likelihood that
ou drivers who looked at the billboards extensively actually wanted to do so.
59
60 13
URL: http://nic.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
1
Traffic Injury Prevention
--, IcI'Ir,all vallAlty iC, Iaow f Um wsaalkl' ;airy, va,.an ic�d tl"rrr)II gil the ic,,llVa:wlI� q
irc aswcs AVa�,rrira±''�rr.ir4°.trier, rymtq:) of paitlriloants, avhc,c V,/Ole Vey Vr� ti'll ll`With thf� O ad v,c,,aa Se1efAEd to
make Shol (a 11r r1 1Vie bi[Hara,nlds va^nir:� nil)l iyc::wr'll tc:+'th°1 drivel, Ir/V ddle. -rya d lnxpoil i:wr d dilvel S v',ele
e[oc to,d to irc.syti,ce Hie spread Sir ilvc rl,ala p'� l thil;il I I lc'� s arr"41ok vc..lkocl^"d fi'iIl Hls stl.'8Vy ,,Icc:ruk�9 I:ae
,c'cII as ,a lest r*,=so , cn'I iaiIo whoh IIov,"�e .vine c:w CkQ i ,:ir��r+t(a , ll�!I!IVC! oeon found 'II) binoi o ,4fcocfid
by uflec 1p of"ria: I rpll9tar:wt=tds (I_r:gquisl ea ;.all , 20 1'I) li i itr:fln ata' butil rrovk, e and v9 let �fiiivei' IMvi,"
drfilckiItuc:n to runaauurg" 9aitger,.anroo.aintf,; cct Ii ioc ination;cie Wan.aid et , M9119 I „ui,gr et „a6:ail
M,9r rly h'avo rt4 lrarIcar,a[c,ct 1physloic?glo' ai M:ablllitics ;.acrd air, in or: ploiru: to suifeT 1mrr'r yggnie� (I��'�"rar�all
r,1 A 2004)�1 rited r^.'sr'ro.a c(,,'aiiov cd us to ill dude <a9 rrrcaa,l 0 pa:alficipants, ;alad to irralrat,ain xa
In a w: iii each ,,aib�;Yo ') 1,6ae w nc, iefl With the chola, c,i,�;itheinvc� ilg atiir,�;�t r"l,�aytlu'mr w"'I us ili gla1 tiilno
g I
virek'1s oll t,tl'd'h; tont agi) groups, fn this Case We ,,r;pe, ted lo t, udy the effer:ls of c,9i%f'erelM fight c..c.al ditior7aa
lisle 9, avii'aq Ilcr, equ".01Y rl°7I•nit NP gilr, ,linilr alaanra't a-argr. Ir:a 9'ailraica ,�,9i�a,tu�,r,
As the billboards had already been in place when the study was commissioned, it was not possible to
run a baseline -treatment comparison in the exact location of the billboards. This was only considered
a minor problem in the analyses of driving behaviour; road stretches in immediate vicinity to the
billboards were very similar to those where the billboards were placed, both in terms of geographical
factors, traffic density, weather and lighting conditions. Therefore, these stretches could be used as
viable baselines.
To conclude, billboards appear to have an effect on gaze behaviour as that they attract more and
longer glances than regular traffic signs. This clearly indicates that they do what they are built for.
Whether they attract attention too much, that is, whether they are a traffic safety hazard, cannot be
answered conclusively based on the present data. This has to be investigated on the one hand in
more controlled studies, where traffic situations of varying complexity can be staged and the
environment can be controlled in a better way, and on the other hand in on -road studies that do not
only consider gaze behaviour, speed and lateral position data, but also tactical manoeuvring and
conflicts.
59
60 14
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 14 of 21
Page 15 of 21
Traffic Injury Prevention
I heI�aIreseIfl < II dy r::aauIs10ides o I I e p,.aI I o7 o Vorwl,e, irav,:s•, qaficiI (.1. � rill ia- c ul , X10 I I „, vohcm III aly iaad
�1 ' C7v (10i ,r'1, as YYY a+.l'a"a aalaa ai"1,d sh.'a'1;isfi s fn) IT1 ,'t 0f `,, Io h+/lan h 15 2011 , wcIe irlcll.xk�d (IIo
sign'1kr,&if a:',N:Iaienrwos VVC1,e 1surnda hat col.aM Iva..,a1.aril a ed to 1l ie blllMx aiads whon ix.fore
,ail+:9 lhi:Ji wisIaVllaii:n) I ho swr,� d: !"h I�'wO ad i\dl^iii a StNd!011 0d1'N1atiS1Eflcd a I,ar,,lei.
dis,aa lia�i7i7, ura ,,ia.ardyF (i vial ci h showed d Rh al q. arc! aild visual a:,llr..a�Ocii v,a,as Seen n as a lc�ia;a4�;alaa�°rrr�
y with ia�^ A hs' Ilii lii oflh �i ,10 Cfi 010 ":Arra dy Sh ,.ar�ilir. t� i S
�r,u,a��7,d on �i'h�ad. ��,�ar9#�,^!�� iusla�.,�ia�!I^r.! hr��iuro, ,al+airy'
a{e6ded Ilt;:d to l°++,vend lros� pvrIo d ,and bo fr,19'10'afC: this' ',:a�i9laaaaid!:a. unl -,fiPi IY'a'aaes' ih'pl lwa,.
This research was funded by the Swedish Transport Administration. The authors would like to thank
the administration's staff at the Stockholm office for their support and commitment to the project as
well as all participants and the staff at VTI who contributed to the study.
Beijer, D, Smiley, A, & Eizenman, M. Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising
Signs. Transp Res Rec. 2004, 1899, 96-103.
Bendak, S, & Al-Saleh, K. The role of roadside advertising signs in distracting drivers. Int Jb7d
Ergon. 2010, 40, 233-236.
Cairney, P, & Gunatillake, T. Roadside advertising signs - A review of the literature and
recommendations for policy. 2000. ARRB Transp Res. Contract Report for RACV (Royal
Automobile Club of Victoria).
Chattington, M, Reed, N, Basacik, D, Flint, A, & Parkes, A. Investigating driver distraction: The
effects of video and static advertising (No. CPR208). 2009. Crowthorne, UK: Transport
Research Laboratory.
Crundall, D, Van Loon, E, & Underwood, G. Attraction and distraction of attention with roadside
advertisements. Accid Anal Prev. 2006, 38, 671-677.
de Waard, D, van der Hulst, M, & Brookhuis, KA. Elderly and young driver's reaction to an in -car
enforcement and tutoring system. Appl Ergon. 1999, 30(2), 147-157.
Dukic, T, Ahlstr6m, C, Bj6rketun, U, Kettwich, C, Yahya, M -R, Patten, C, Tapani, A, & Vadeby, A.
Effects of billboards on traffic safety — A study on the motorway E4 in Stockholm (No. 725).
2011. Linkoping, Sweden.
Dukic, T, Hanson, L, Holmqvist, K, & Wartenberg, C. Effect of button location on driver's visual
behaviour and safety perception. Ergonomics. 2005, 48(4), 399-410.
Edquist, J, Horberry, T, Hosking, S, & Johnston, I. Effects of advertising billboards on simulated
driving. Appl Ergon. 2011, 42(4), 619-626.
Farbry, J, Wochinger, K, Shafer, T, Owens, N, & Nedzesky, A. Research review of potential safety
effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction. 2001. Washington, DC.
Hallett, P. Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions. Vision Res. 1978, 18,
1279-1296.
Hughes, PK, & Cole, BL. What Attracts Attention When Driving? Ergon. 1986, 29(6), 377-391.
Johansson, G, & Backlund, F. Drivers and road signs. Ergon. 1970, 13, 749-759.
�)u
59
60 15
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Traffic Injury Prevention
Johansson, G, & Rumar, K. Drivers and road signs: A preliminary investigation of the capacity of car
drivers to get information from road signs. Ergon. 1966, 9, 57-62.
Klauer, SG, Dingus, TA, Neale, VL, Sudweeks, J, & Ramsey, D. The impact of driver inattention on
near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100 -car naturalistic driving study data (No. DOT
HS 810 594). 2006. Washington DC: NHTSA.
Klauer, SG, Guo, F, Sudweeks, J, & Dingus, TA. An Analysis of Driver Inattention Using a Case -
Crossover Approach 100 -Car Data: Final Report (No. DOT HS 811 334). 2010. Washington,
DC.
McMonagle, A. Traffic accidents and roadside features. Highway Res Board Bulletin. 1952, 55, 38-
48.
NHTSA. Traffic safety facts — Research note: An examination of driver distraction as recorded in
NHTSA databases (No. DOT HS 811 216). 2009.
Olson, RL, Hanowski, RJ, Hickman, JS, & Bocanegra, J. Driver distraction in commercial vehicle
operations (No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042). 2009. Washington, D.C.
Ponds, RW, Brouwer, WH, & van Wolffelaar, PC. Age differences in divided attention in a simulated
driving task. JGerontol. 1988, 43(6), P151-156.
Puell, MC, Palomo, C, Sanchez -Ramos, C, & Villena, C. Mesopic contrast sensitivity in the presence
or absence of glare in a large driver population. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004,
242(9), 755-761.
Regan, MA, Hallett, C, & Gordon, CP. Driver distraction and driver inattention: Definition,
relationship and taxonomy. Accid Anal Prev. 2011, 43(5), 1771-1781.
Smiley, A, Persaud, B, Bahar, G, Mollett, C, Lyon, C, Smahel, T, & Kelman, WL. Traffic safety
evaluation of video advertising signs. Transp Res Record 2005, 1937, 105-112.
Sprenger, A, Scheider, W, & Derkum, H. (1997). Traffic signs, visibility and recognition. Paper
presented at the 7th Int Conf Vision in Vehicles, Marseilles.
Tantala, AM, & Tantala, MW. A study of the relation between digital billboards and traffic safety in
Cuyahoga county, Ohio. 2007. Philadelphia, PA: Tantala Associates.
Transit. Can I put an advertising sign alongside a state highway? 2008. Retrieved 2012/04/19, from
Trick, LM, & Enns, JT. (2009). A two-dimensional framework for understanding the role of attention
selection in driving. In C. Castro (Ed.), Human Factors of Visual and Cognitive Performance
in Driving Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Wallace, B. Driver distraction by advertising: genuine risk or urban myth? Munic Eng. 2003, 156,
185-190.
Wikman, A -S, Nieminen, T, & Summala, H. Driving experience and time-sharing during in -car tasks
on roads of different width. Ergonomics. 1998, 41(3), 358-372.
Young, MS, & Mahfoud, JM. Driven to Distraction: Determining the effects of Roadside Advertising
on Driver Attention. 2007. Uxbridge, UK: Brunel University.
Young, MS, Mahfoud, JM, Stanton, NA, Salmon, PM, Jenkins, DP, & Walker, GH. Conflicts of
interest: The implications of roadside advertising for driver attention. Transp Res Part F.
2009, 12, 381-388.
Zwahlen, HT, Adams, CC, & DeBald, DP. (1988). Safety aspects of CRT touch panel controls in
automobiles. Paper presented at the Vision in Vehicles 11, Nottingham, England.
Zwahlen, HT, Adams, CC, Jr., & Debald, DP. (1988). Safety aspects of CRT touch panel controls in
automobiles. In A. G. Gale, M. H. Freeman, C. M. Haslegrave, P. A. Smith & S. P. Taylor
(Eds.), Vision in Vehicle II (Vol. 2, pp. 335-344). North Holland: Elsevier Science B.V.
59
60 16
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 16 of 21
Page 17 of 21
i
Traffic Injury Prevention
Talblle Ifl IMean and standard deviiatioirn of the diffterent gaze (behaviour varialbles grouped Iby the factors
day/night and electronic billllboard versus other types of signs..
Day Night
;,✓
59
60 17
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Billboard
Other signs
Billboard
Other signs
Dwell time (s)
2.23 ± 2.26
0.87 ± 0.73
2.09 ± 2.21
1.16 ± 0.74
Visual Time Sharing l,'f:)
15.29 ± 13.21
9.20 ± 5.84
11.33 ± 11.84
10.80 ± 5.87
Number of fixations (fid' )
2.68 ± 1.93
1.26 ± 0.45
2.10 ± 1.37
1.50 ± 0.88
Maximum fixation duration (s)
0.95 ± 0.78
0.62 ± 0.55
1.00 ± 0.73
0.70 ± 0.43
;,✓
59
60 17
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
t"ablle 2: (yearn and standard deviiatio n of the ditffereirwt diriiAng performance varialbles in groups of the
factors day/night
and road stiretch
(at the biillllboard, before the Il:)iifiboard
and atter the Ibiilllboaird).
31
Day
Night
32
33
Billboard
Before
After
Billboard
Before
After
34
35
S1
86.41 t 5.53
81.94 ± 5.19
88.03 ± 5.88
83.30 ± 6.93
78.09 ± 5.93
84.28 ± 5.14
36
37
S2
105.43 ± 4.32
105.26 ± 5.33
106.32 ± 4.16
99.04 ± 4.82
98.94 ± 4.86
98.05 ± 5.66
38
Mean velocity
39Q)
S3
88.48 ± 8.04
90.85 ± 5.41
90.53 ± 4.30
89.97 ± 5.95
90.31 ± 6.06
89.79 ± 6.63
40
41
S4
82.82 ± 6.17
85.65 ± 4.38
80.42 ± 5.98
82.45 ± 6.66
86.67 ± 5.37
82.64 ± 6.03
42
__..
................3............._.
43
S1
16.76 ± 3.84
16.02 ± 5.70
14.53 ± 5.85
24.20 ± 12.95
14.16 + 6.._...
_ 60
12.67 ± 3.95
44
S2
12.85±3.11
15.62±4.49
14.15±9.83
18.15±11.52
17.16±5.83
14.02±7.41
45
Standard deviation
46
of lateral position
S3
14.18 ± 5.07
26.45 ± 20.41
16.65 ± 5.23
12.66 ± 3.88
18.50 ± 7.85
15.94 ± 7.73
47
r„
48
S4
16.31 ±5.36
17.74±4.60
14.48±5.13
15.66±5.15
19.72±7.36
16.01 ±7.34
49
50
S1
1.70 ± 0.73
2.02 ± 1.02
1.90 ± 0.90
1.79 ± 0.82
1.64 ± 0.91
2.32 ± 1.14
51
52
S2
1.86±0.85
1.81 ±0.84
1.91 ±0.88
2.14±0.81
2.32±0.87
2.03±0.82
53
Minimum time
54
headway ) s)
S3
1.85 ± 0.48
2.25 ± 1.33
1.63 ± 0.34
2.89 ± 1.29
2.56 ± 1.54
2.22 ± 0.98
55
9;R
S4
1.53 ± 0.60
1.63 ± 0.63
1.65 ± 0.46
1.91 ± 0.84
1.67 ± 0.88
1.60 ± 0.86
;,✓
59
60 17
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Jv
59
60
Traffic Injury Prevention
Figure 1: Example showing one of the electronic advertising billboards.
100
a- 50
Day
Night
C;1
ffM Looked
IBM No tracking
IM Did not look
Figure 2: The percentage of participants that looked (green) or did not look (red) at the different signs.
Light grey background indicates daytime driving and dark grey background illustrates night-time driving.
The number after the signs indicates the location from where the data originates. For example, overhead
gantry 1 and guide sign 1 were located in the vicinity of the electronic billboard 51.
18
URL: http://mc,manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 18 of 21
Page 19 of 21
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
SR
�IaI
59
60
10
5 8
Traffic Injury Prevention
Day Night Day Night
rn
c
m 40
L
as
20
m
0
10
U)
C
CU0 8
CU
X s
0
0
4
E 2
z
0
—5
c 4
0
x
3
E 2
E
0
'b b b b b t a b b b
IFigure 3.. Boxpiots of dweHH Ume, visu W tiirne sharing, number of fixations and the Hongest fixations for
each .siign. Red Ibexes arra Mectronuc biliboards, green (boxes are other signs. 11...6ght grey background
indicates daytiirrne drrii ing and dark grey background flHustrates nfight•-tHrne ddving, On each box, the
cerntrM mark its the rrrued°Dara, the edges of the box are the first and third quarrtflies, the whiskers extend to
the rrnost extreme data pciints w than 1.5 times the interguartiille mange and outherrs are Ipiotted 'ond'uv'udeuailly,
19
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
a)
E
P:
Traffic Injury Prevention
(M f3
C
ami +:
E
ba"' vA in e rv6ilhime
Dayfinie Night-fte Daybine t4ight-time
11::Igure, 4: Mean vallues across Iloa rticlipants and sli.pi,is for dyvefl t1hne, visual Urne s1haii,-ling, numbet- of
fixabons and Mw Woragest fixaUons roir the factors hime-of-day and s11gn-tyj,,w,
20
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 20 of 21
Le
0
.2
ig
LL
0
E
D
0
E
.0
E
23
Dayfinie Night-fte Daybine t4ight-time
11::Igure, 4: Mean vallues across Iloa rticlipants and sli.pi,is for dyvefl t1hne, visual Urne s1haii,-ling, numbet- of
fixabons and Mw Woragest fixaUons roir the factors hime-of-day and s11gn-tyj,,w,
20
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
Page 20 of 21
Page 21 of 21
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
C; A
59
60
9
8
7
5
E
4
3
2
Traffic Injury Prevention
0�- ...................................... 3u 0
0 5 10 15
Exposure time (s)
Figure 5: Scatter plot of dwell time as a function of exposure time. Red circles in(Acate cooces M
electronic advertising bifliboards and green circles represent glances ,,A other typl 'S of SiWis, i"Med
circles represent cases with a single glance longer than tw,o secoinds. The fine represerds a thresh("Ald
based on the 24n•6 and the 3 -in 15 rules, where all cases above the Hine are considered as occurrences
of visual dilstraction. The shaded area determines where these rules are considered as valid..
21
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcpi Email: dviano@comcast.net
100 -Car Naturalistic
Fact Sheet
Setting up the Study
Study Sponsors:
® National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
• Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT)
• Virginia Transportation Research
Council (VTRC)
Is Virginia Tech (VT)
Study Parameters:
• 109 primary drivers, 241 total drivers
(primary plus secondary)
• Northern Virginia/Metropolitan
Washington, DC area
• 12 - 13 months of data collection
• Drivers' ages ranging from 18 to
73 years old; 60 percent male; 40
percent female
100 -Car Study Features:
• First large-scale instrumented -vehicle
study undertaken with the primary
purpose of collecting pre-crash and
near -crash naturalistic driving data.
• Captured a range of severity of
crashes from airbag deployments to
minor, low -force, no -property -damage
crashes.
• First study to collect detailed
information on a large number of near -
crash events.
• Drivers were given no special
instructions and no experimenter was
present.
• Vehicles were used for general
purpose driving.
• Data collection instrumentation was
unobtrusive.
Data Collection Instrumentation
Included:
• Five channels of digital, compressed
video
• Front and rear radar sensors
• Accelerometers
• Machine vision -based lane tracker
• GPS
• Vehicle speed sensor
TheDatabase:
Contains many extreme driving
cases, including severe drowsiness,
impairment, judgment error, risk
taking, secondary task engagement,
aggressive driving and traffic violations
• Each safety-related conflict was
classified as one of the following:
► Crash - any physical contact
between the subject vehicle and
another vehicle, fixed object,
pedestrian, pedalcyclist or animal
► Near -Crash - situations requiring
a rapid, severe evasive maneuver
to avoid a crash
► Incident - situations requiring an
evasive maneuver occurring at
less magnitude than a near -crash
Top Level Database Statistics
0 Approximately 2,000,000 vehicle
miles of driving
• 42,300 hours of driving data
• 15 police -reported and 67 non -police -
reported crashes
• 761 near -crashes
• 8,295 incidents
Types of Driving Behavior Recorded:
• Drowsiness
• Driver Inattention
• Traffic violations
• Aggressive driving and "road rage"
• Seat belt usage
Discoveries
Driver Inattention.
• Nearly 80 percent of all crashes and
65 percent of all near -crashes involved
driver inattention (due to distraction,
fatigue, orjust looking away) just prior
to (i.e., within 3 seconds) the onset of
the conflict.
Rear -End -Striking Crashes:
• Visual inattention was a contributing
factor for 93 percent of rear -end -
striking crashes.
• In 86 percent of rear -end -striking
crashes, the headway at the onset of
the event was greater than 2.0 s.
• Most near crashes involving conflict
with a lead vehicle occurred while
the lead vehicle was moving, while
100 percent of the crashes (14
total) occurred when the lead vehicle
was stopped. This indicates that
drivers are sufficiently aware and
able to perform evasive maneuvers
when closing rates are lower and/or
expectancies about traffic are not
violated.
Age -Related:
• Judgment error, including secondary
task performance in higher risk
situations, driving while impaired,
and other instances of aggressive
driving, was much more prevalent in
the youngest age group (i.e., 18 to 20
years) relative to the older age groups.
• The rate of inattention -related crash
and near -crash events decreased
dramatically with age, with the rate
being as much as four times higher
for the 18 -to 20 -year-old age group
relative to the older groups (i.e., 35+
years).
Hand -Held Wireless Devices:
• Primarily cellular telephones, but
included a small amount of PDA use.
• Associated with the highest frequency
of distraction -related events for both
incidents and near -crashes.
Driver Drowsiness:
• Contributing factor in 20 percent of all
crashes and 16 percent of all near -
crashes, while most current database
estimates place fatigue -related
crashes at a much lower percent (i.e.,
under 10 percent) of total crashes.
For more information, contact the VTTI Communications Office
Sherri Box, Communications Mgr., 540/231-1549/'off
Katie Thacker, PR and Marketing, 540/231-1548TRC
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute ��
-Mw Now* so"=
3500 Transportation Research Plaza
People seving People Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
media@vtti.vt.edu
Washington State
.i cor Control Board
.
Proposed Rules Highlights
Revised: September 16, 2013
LCB Rulemaking Objective
o Creating a tightly controlled and regulated marijuana market;
o Including strict controls to prevent diversion, illegal sales, and sales to minors; and
o Providing reasonable access to products to mitigate the illicit market.
LCB Role and Responsibility
o Ensuring public safety is the top priority;
o Creating a three-tier regulatory system for marijuana;
o Creating licenses for producers, processors, and retailers;
o Enforcing laws and rules pertaining to licensees; and
o Collecting and distributing taxes.
Timeline
December 6, 2012 Effective date of new law
September 4, 2013 File Supplemental CR 102 with revised proposed rules
October 9, 2013 Public hearing(s) on proposed rules (time and location TBD)
October 16, 2013 Board adopts or rejects proposed rules (CR 103)
November 16, 2013 Rules become effective
November 18, 2013 Begin accepting applications for all three licenses (30 -day window)
December 1, 2013 Deadline for rules to be complete (as mandated by law)
December 18, 2013 30 -day window closes for producer, processor and retailer license applications
Proposed Rules Highlights
License Requirements
• 30 -day Window
o The LCB will open registration for all license types for a 30 -calendar -day window (November 18, 2013)
o LCB may extend the time or reopen application window at its discretion
• State Residency Requirement
0 1-502 requires a three month state residency requirement (all license structure types)
• Background Checks
0 Personal criminal history completed by applicant. Risk of license forfeiture if incomplete or incorrect.
o Fingerprinting of all potential licensees
o Background checks of license applicants and financiers
• Point System
0 The LCB will apply a disqualifying point system similar to liquor
o All applicants must disclose all arrests and/or convictions
0 Non -disclosure of arrests regardless of conviction will result in point accumulation
September 16, 2013
• License Limits
o Licensed entity or principals limited to three producer licenses
o Licensed entity or principals limited to three processor licenses
o Licensed entity or principals limited to three retail licenses. Multiple -location licensees not allowed to
hold more than 33 percent of the allowed licenses in any county or city.
• Production Limits
o The maximum amount of space for marijuana production is limited to two million square feet.
o Applicants must designate on their operating plan the size category of the production premises and the
actual square footage in their premises that will be designated as plant canopy. There are three
categories:
• Tier 1: Less than 2,000 square feet;
• Tier 2: 2,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet;
• Tier 3: 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet.
o The LCB may reduce a licensee's or applicants' square footage designated to plant canopy for the
following reasons:
• If the total amount of square feet for production of all licensees exceeds the two million square
feet maximum, the LCB will reduce the allowed square footage by the same percentage.
• If 50 percent production space used for plant canopy in the licensee's operating plan is not met
in the first year of operation, the board may reduce the tier of licensure.
• If the total amount of square feet of marijuana production exceeds two million square feet, the
LCB may reduce all licensees' production by the same percentage or reduce licensee
production by one or more tiers by the same percentage.
• Maximum Allowable Amount on Licensed Location
o Producer license
• Outdoor or greenhouse: 125 percent of its year's harvest
• Indoor: six months of its annual harvest
o Processor license
• Six months of their average useable marijuana (plant material); and
IN Six months average of their total production (finished product).
o Retailer license
•, Four months of their average inventory
• Licensed Location: 1'000 foot Measurement*
o Distance will be measured a r-Gr-aGfosse�-puiA1111111�If
cwr thea ie-pessa"way.1twee+14lae-"posed d rei ss-ioeatior tG4he— 4meter-Gf4 e
gfeu1R_d_s I an elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care
center, public park, public transit center, library or arcade where admission is not restricted to those
age 21 and older.
Important fioic P.cttan1i:°:g t:i°:c "t,i')W'l t"c4°�t i''c::s::rcment:..i.. I CB,,PJVfHe an . rn. r,i .nu y
w()N., Ik:,N,lMN Ne�o(°.s4NIIy ct,irrent N.m. p.„:r.gMa,fiu.,rg the 1 ,()(11H1,Y LuPNeri. Nle M"gn .Ahri L,,.�ttIR � 1µ y
.4I,.,
8N
u..�s� w.aNiw r��,:��� ns tillwsi��ul aI �rqidL� Ni�� dNli��. ith��property fine NNeltl:1w
tl���N
iLru�usn ��propertyi Uneof auII dUiI.." .m .�u�..uu).I� r se.N:il .,,h.1lN, N ". ,.. .uulil "IitA"""�.N.^Y uR" f�'flfty,
",hr..
Vltl
wuucenter, wbNw p,i, L.N,iu� �r.��1 �e�Nc, uLaay c,rurcwNe ni,ue- Nrrurwuon is riot Il.P„,%..'
and dweNdr;lr.,,
September 16, 2013
• Costs and Fees
o $250 application fee
o $1,000 annual renewal fee
o Additional fees for background check and filing for local business license
• Taxes
o License applicants must submit a signed attestation that they are current on taxes owed to the
Washington State Department of Revenue
• Insurance
o Licensees are required to carry commercial liability insurance..
Public Safety
• Producer Structures
o Rules allow producer operations in secure: indoor and outdoor grows as well as greenhouses
Traceability
o LCB will employ a robust and comprehensive traceability system (software) that will trace product from
seed/clone to sale.
o LCB enforcement can match records to actual product on hand
• Background Checks
o Personal criminal history form
o Fingerprinting of all potential licensees
o Background checks of licensees and financiers
• Point System
o LCB will apply a disqualifying point system similar to liquor (exceptions for possession)
• Violation Guidelines / Standard Administrative Procedures Act Guidelines
o $1,000 criminal penalty for sales to a minor
o Sets strict tiered system of violation record over a three year period
Group 1 public safety:
• First violation: 10 day suspension or $2,500
• Second violation: 30 day suspension
• Third violation: license cancellation
• Local Authority Objections
o Substantial weight will be given to a local authority during the renewal process based upon chronic
illegal activity associated with the licensee's operation of the premises.
• Child Resistant Packaging
o Specific requirements for marijuana and marijuana -infused products in solid and liquid forms
• Security and Safeguards
o Alarm and surveillance video camera requirements (including minimum pixels and lockbox
encasement)
September 16, 2013
o Strict transportation and record keeping requirements (no third party transport of product)
o Hours of operation limited to 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
• Advertising Restrictions
o Law restricts advertising within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, transit centers, arcades, and other
areas where children are present.
o May not contain statements or illustrations that are false or misleading, promotes overconsumption,
represents that it has curative or therapeutic effects, depicts a child or may be appealing to children
o All advertising must contain two statements: a: "This product has intoxicating effects and may be habit
forming." And, b) "Marijuana can impair concentration, coordination, and judgment. Do not operate a
vehicle or machinery under the influence of this drug."
• Limits on Retail Stores
o Total number or retail outlets limited to 334 statewide
o LCB to provide advance notice to local authority
o Per 1-502, LCB to determine number of retail outlets per county
• BOTEC Analysis Corporation provided initial county consumption levels
• Retail stores allocation proportionate to population and consumption
Consumer Safety
• Behind the Counter Storage
o No open containers or handling of product
o Sniff jars with sealed, screened -top lids allowed
• Strict Packaging and Label Requirements
o Limited servings and concentration per package
o Lot number
o Warning label
o Net weight
o Concentration of THC
o Usage warnings (specific warning for ingestible foods/liquids about effect delays)
o Upon request
■ Third party lab that tested lot and results
• All pesticides, herbicides, fungicides found in product
• Defined Serving Size
o Defined serving sizes on marijuana -infused product label
10 mg of THC per serving
• 100 mg of THC per product
• A single unit of marijuana -infused extract for inhalation cannot exceed one gram
• Transaction Limits on Concentrates (extracts)
o A single transaction is limited to seven grams of marijuana -infused extract for inhalation
September 16, 2013
• Lab Tested and Approved (monograph)
o All lots will be tested by independent accredited labs
o Established and uniform testing standards
o Quality assurance testing
• Store Signage and Product Warnings
o No minors allowed in stores
o Required product and usage signs within stores
For more information regarding Initiative 502, please visit the Liquor Control Board website at www.lip.we.ggv.
September 16, 2013
November 12, 2013
City of Yakima
Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission,
Q4
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
On behalf of the International Sign Association (ISA) and the Northwest Sign Council(NWSC), I would like
to submit our organization's comments with regard to Introductory Discussion of billboards and digital
signs. The International Sign Association (ISA) is a 2000 -member trade association, the members of
which are manufacturers, users and suppliers of on -premise signs and other visual communications
products from the 50 United States and 60 countries around the world. ISA supports, promotes and
improves the visual communications industry, which sustains the nation's retail, distribution, service and
manufacturing industries. ISA and the NWSC work actively with officials throughout the northwest to
assist jurisdictions to create reasonable and effective sign regulations.
ISA hopes that staff, City Council, and other involved stakeholders should consider the following
resources as part of their information -gathering and ordinance -writing processes. In preparation for
this meeting we took 4erty to review the sign code for,1,' best practices,
For purposes of organization, I have organized my comments into three categories of feedback. The first
grouping is fhongjgBeqvired to rote t tfte City. The next category are C"� ods RgLcoMmended as
Best roa rices in tinI it rdinon.
Substitution Clause
A substitution clause permitting the display of non-commercial copy on any sign allowed under the
ordinance is a modern requirement of every sign ordinance. Excellent discussions on this subject can be
found within A rrome ork f=orn t,!Le rnisc ii i gyuiati q (2009; Cleveland State Prof. Alan
Weinstein/David Hartt) and the &jji is or��pideboo, (2011; Michigan State Prof. Mark
Wyckoff/Brian Connolly). The substitution clause need not be complex; a single -sentence statement
permitting the substitution of non-commercial copy on any allowable sign is sufficient.
Substitution clause examples include the simple: `Any stgri of f j:oi jj fdis rio erf uq erLl rrwision
-
this e rdirrlance majLContgin2 rton car mel cool message,' or the more specific: "Any si n offowed under
this or a2redec ssor ordirrc rr s e fo a c tin...r vorio e w + contain, in fieu p on Ther
Me soq r cam, ony u' ooncommej ri f mgs orfe that does not direct ot°tention tp business
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
oat wLafat r Ca crrluct tLDio-dd r care crr zole or lease; or to a ether c; rrrrme c"fal
gnterest ar o tiv%res en os i��:�i ra r oro Iles with the,si e h i ,ht� area an other re uir m nts r
__._ m
this ordinance."
Another standard requirement of every modern sign ordinance is a severability clause, generally defined
as a "provision that keeps the remaining provisions of a ... statute in force if any portion of that ...
statute is judicially declared void or unconstitutional." Given the large amount of litigation in the area of
sign regulation, a city that fails to include a severability clause in its sign regulations exposes itself to the
risk that the entire set of regulations will be voided should a court find.
Later in Article 17-17 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, a severability clause appears. However, it may be
useful to cross-reference the severability clause within Article 13.
Examples of severability clauses include the simple: "ff any!ifctio11 orsubsection of this Sion n Code is
Loynd to be invpli court of competent iurisdiction, all rernoining� vision shall he deemed valid.,,
and the more complex:. fiis and the various components, article secticrr, u4s ction
sentencesa lit s s are hereby declared to be severable.1 an count, f cQM eterit "r�r°r"saiction shad
declare on art of this c c t r to be unconstitutional or invalid such rulingshall ia1 ffi�c rrp raC i#r
vision o this cha t r ip cif fr l included n maid rtrliop.. urt er i an ce rt elf i pir p erct
fl risdiction shall declare m. nc tj ti tutkrjr e)(invalia the alp licati n of ons+ provision of this_ chri,p r.kg mra
LaLtk 11q ri?el, lot, sse� ii ldinq._QL.A CtictzuC su n hadl !1pl a_ffect the ar plical o .skid
l ara r iota to ail all er :parcel lot r _s h ri it g...c r rurti r mra t
specifically included in said ruling,,'
Time Limits on._ P rr it Apprgva1
Another complicated (and frequently litigated) area of sign regulation law concerns the subject of "prior
restraints" on free speech. (Excellent discussions can be found on pg. 16 of Prof. Weinstein's model
ordinance or on pg. 11 ofA Ce al and Technical fglorotMion 910n -Premise Sion n Rggulation An Evidence
o sed Model Sion Code by University of Oklahoma Prof. Dawn Jourdan) Prior restraints can occur in
several ways; most commonly through either (a) unbridled discretion in approvals or (b) a failure to
respond to a permit request in a reasonable amount of time.
"Reasonable" is a term that has disparate meaning to different individuals. Best practices suggest that,
if permits are approved administratively by staff, appropriate time limits (that will withstand judicial
scrutiny) are 30-60 days. Obviously, the sign industry would prefer a short duration.
M
F,.
i
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
Maintain se erste seed distinct reraatlaztioats or oat- ternlse and o �premdse slatns
The current sign code for Yakima has distinct and separate regulations for on premise and off premise
signs. We strongly recommend that all of the regulations for on -premise and off -premise signs be
maintained as entirely separate sections of the sign ordinance. This will ensure correct administration of
these sections and minimize any confusion of the regulations for on -premise and off -premise signs.
See the attached information that outlines the differences between on -premise and off -premise signs.
Deinitionor electronk message center
We recommend that a definition for an electronic message center be include in the definition section of
the code.
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTS EMC - A si n that i awe able of dis la in words��7� 1s� �i ures
r irta s That can be electronicaNl or mehanicall than ed b remote or automatic means.
In 2008, ISA hired a lighting expert (and a former president of the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America) to develop recommendations for self-regulating industry standards to address concerns
about EMC brightness. These standards are compliant with IES TM -11-00 ("Light Trespass: Research,
Results, and Recommendations"). In summary:
B. EMC Illumination Limits: The diflt°rerrce ltetween the o and solid massa 'e measurements
usina the EMC Measurement Criteria shall not exceed 0.3 ootcandles.
C Dimartrnq Qpobiiitles: All Permitted EMCs shall be e ued with a sensor or other device that
I� utom ticpll' determines the ambient illumination andro rammed to aaatomaticail dim
according to amltient li I t cctaaditians or that cera Lae ad'°oared to costa i with the 0.3 footcan l ,
measurements.
We believe that the 0.3 foot-candles standard (which is typically equivalent to -320 nits or less of an all -
white EMC background at night) is proven to be an appropriate method for regulating brightness.
We find that correct brightness levels for EMCs is the most critical regulatory element for this sign type.
Again, ISA and the NWSC hopes that the Planning Commission, staff, Council, and other involved
stakeholders should consider these suggestions to the language of the proposed ordinance. Thank
you for your time and consideration to the ISA recommendations to the proposed regulations. ISA
W'T"JI (Iffw 2V.,' 21'161)�kA 2SS!5t2-xC
on -premise signs.
Sincerely,
James • AICP
- I -•-
MARIJUANA
M AMID X V:
Having conducted a multidimensional study of markets,
key trends, end industry dynamics in 2013, Arcview Market
Research conctutd.es the following:
The US national legal marijuana
market value is now assessed at,
$1.44 billion, comprising all states
that have active and open sales of
cannabis to people legally allowed
to possess it under state lawn. The
national rnarket is projected to
grow 64 percent from current levels
to $2.34 billion by 2014.
The five .-year national market
potential is $10.2 billion, which is
more than a..700 percen t increase
above the current national market
WdLle. Gains will come in the form
of increased dernand in existing
state markets, as well as from new
state markets coming online within
a five-year horizon,
Adult Use in Washington and
Colorado is projected to add $359
rniflion and $208 million to their
respective markets in 2014. In
addition to forecasting how these
markets will grow in coming years,
this report examines implernenta-
hon dynamics ofnew regulations
and how Adult Use sales will impact
the Medical Use market segrnenL
ArcView,\4arket Research pre-
dicts 14 -,states will adoptAdult Use
regulations within five Years. Those
states are: Alaska, Orego.n, Rhode
[sland, New I tampshire, Vermont,
Maryland, I lawail', Maine, MiSSOUri,
Massacht_:nsefts, Nevada, Arizona,
California and Delaware.
California remains the largest state
market at $981rnillion, even without.
Adult Use regi-flations, As detailed
later in this report., once Adult Use is
adopted.—which is likely by 2011
the total California market is pro .-
jected to increase dramatically and
to secure an even more dominant
portion of the national Triarket,
, f �') � r 1,' a t L PvIE � il -J e � - , '
h,�U - J LA H �'I �'I IVI, , rn
�� iu o Growth
uuu'°i� r 11 ��
uuuuul� °mo �ilu i cudIj
1200000000
900000000
600000000
300000000
0
140000000
105000000
70000000
35000000
0
Michigan Massachusetts Oregon Arizona
California Colorado Washington
10000000
7500000
5000000
2500000
0
Nc
Maine New Mexico DC Connecticut
Market Size 2013
Market Size 2014
',M, MarketSize 2013
M Market Size 2014
1 Market Size 2013
19 Market Size 2014
MA'6CtjtNA A... --
MAMAkR.LTO Order the Ul report at R...egaWarijuanaMairkets.co }
F' -
Far, the industry, by the industry
The National Cannabis Industry Association
is leading the only unified and coordinated,
industry -directed campaign campaign to
defend and advance the legal cannabis
trades throughout the United States. As a
membership -based trade association, NCIA
is driven by hundreds of preeminent
cannabis industry leaders and businesses
from across the nation.
NCIA is the only national industry
association dedicated to addressing issues
of importance to the emerging cannabis
industry, from lobbying the federal
government on issues such as banking
access and tax policy to promoting best
practices and hosting valuable educational
events.
NCIA is governed by its members and
employs a democratic process for selecting
its leadership. Elections for seats on the
NCIA Board of Directors are held each
spring and all qualifying association
members are eligible to vote.
0
What NCIA "is dollrig
he burgeoning iir iir lis
i r
• Working with Congress and federal
agencies, such as the IRS and the Treasury
Department, to ensure that cannabis
businesses are treated the same as other
businesses under the law.
• Engaging in public affairs and media
relations to improve the image of
cannabis and legitimate cannabis
business.
• Educating the nation's political and
opinion leaders on the legal cannabis
industry's role in stimulating the economy.
• Providing valuable insider information and
unparalleled networking opportunities to
our members.