Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

remove 15 of the 30 conventional static image . billboards in the city in exchange for penn ission tD install its digital billboards. The city will per- mit the company tD install no more than eight dynamic signs at fDur to six locations. The City of San Antonio amended its sign and billboard Drdinance in December 2007 to require the removal of up tD four static billboards in exchange for permission to install one digital display billboard in their place. PriortD that amendment the city had nD provisions for digital sign technology, but it did already have a two-for- one replacement requirement. The city has a developed a sliding scale that determines the number of billboards required to be removed in exchange for a single digital billboard. According to the scale, the number of digital signs permit- ted is determined by the total square footage Df static billboard faces removed. Therefore, a bill- board company will be required to demolish as few as three and as many as 19 billbDards tD get one new digital billboard structure placed or an existing static billboard face replaced. IT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF 'DISTRACTING' Digital signs are brighter and more distracting than any other type of sign. Other attention- grabbers, like strobe lights, mirrors, search- lights, and signs with moving parts, are typically prohibited (or allowed under very narrow cir- cumstances) by even the mDst hands-off juris- dictions. The high visual impact Df digital signs has prompted highway and traffic safety experts to try to quantify how drivers respond to such distractions. This research, which is summarized below', has been instrumental in helping' cities craft new sign ordinances that address the spe- cific characteristics of such signs, including how Dften the messages or images change, the degree of brightness, and their placement rela- tive to residential areas. The Federal Highway Administration.is cur- rently conducting a study on driver distraction and the safety or impact of new sign technolo- gies on driver attention. The initial phase, which is slated to -be completed by June 2D08, will iden- tify and evaluate the most significant issues and develop research methods needed to secure definitive results. The FHWA anticipates the sec- ond phase of the research study and final report will be completed in the latter part of calendar year 2009. Also, the Transportation Research Board (a branch ofthe National Science Foundation) has formed a subcommittee to examine research needs on electronic signs. 46 Until a couple of years ago, one of the only studies on the effects of billboards and traffic safety was a 1980 survey of existing research on the subject prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (Wachtel and Netherton 1980). It did not, however, provide any concrete answers. The study noted "attempts to quantify the impact of roadside advertising on traffic safety . City of MinnetDnka, Minnesota. 2007. Staff report to city council rec- ommending adoption of an ordi- nance regulating digital signs. June 25. Available at www.eminnetonka.com/comm u- n ity_development/ plan n ing/ show_ pro ject. cfm?li n U d=Dyn ami CSi gns _0 rd i n a nce&caUi n k_i d= Plan n i ng. . City of San Antonio City Code, Chapter 28. Amendment Adding Provisions for Digital Signs. Last revised December 2, 2007. Available at http://epay.sananto- n io.gov / dsddocumentcentral/ uploa d / SIG NsecDRAFTF.pdf. . City of Seattle, Land Use Code, Section 23.55.005 Signs, Video Display Methods. Last revised 2004. http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/ -:public/ clrkhome.htm. have not yielded conclusive results." The authors found that courts typically rule on the side of dis- allowing billboards because ofthe "readily understood logic that a driver cannot be expected to give full attention to his driving tasks when he is reading a billboard." A 2006 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that focused prima- rily on driver distractions inside the car (i.e., phone use, eating, and changing the radio sta- tion) concluded that any distraction of more than two seconds is a potential cause of crashes and near crashes. A 2004 study at the University ofToronto found that drivers make twice as many glances at active (i.e., video signs) than they do at pas- sive (i.e., static) signs. All three ofthe moving sign types that were studied (video, scrolling text, and trivision) attracted more than twice as many glances as static signs. They also found that the drivers' glances at the active signs were longer in duration; 88 percent of glances were at least 0.75 seconds long. A duration of 0.75 sec- onds or longer is important because that is the amount of time required for a driver to react to a vehicle that is slowing down ahead. Video and scrolling text signs received the longest average maximum glance duration. An earlier study also at the University of Toronto that was designed to determine whether video billboards distract drivers' attention from traffic signals found that drivers made roughly the same number of glances at traffic signals and street signs with and without full-motion video ZONINGPRACTlCE 4.08 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4