Executive Summary …

Executive Summary

Why Should the Corridor Signing Policy governing Third Party Signs Along Series 400 Highways be Changed

•The existing policy is doing more harm than good
•Unnecessary confusion and conflict exists between property owners, sign operators and municipal governments
•Most illegal signs will either become compliant or have a path to become compliant
•An effective tool for moving signs out of neighbourhoods into commercialized areas
•The policy should be replaced with one that recognizes that the right signs, in the right location, with the proper approvals can be safe and can be a benefit to the community.

Why New Technologies should be Recognized and Adopted in the Corridor Signing Policy

•Digital technologies are rapidly redefining the out of home advertising industry
•Government jurisdictions across North America have adopted new policies allowing static digital signs (no video or animation) and digital advertising is now recognized as a standard form of outdoor advertising
•Digital technologies, and the ability to change messaging instantaneously, provide benefits that static advertising cannot provide
•Gives government free access to extend and compliment MTO’s Compass Program
•Changes are allowing the oldest advertising medium to become safe, modern, effective and efficient

The Science on Safety

•Studies across North America have found that Digital Signs are safety neutral and do not increase the likelihood of accidents
•Widespread acceptance of digital signs by government regulators
•Governments use digital signs for their own safety messaging

Why the Policy should Differentiate between Urban and Rural

•Third Party Signs belong in Urban Areas with appropriate regulations
•Third party signs should not impact on the rural and / or natural character of areas outside already commercialized Census Metropolitan Areas
•Third party signs outside of Urban Areas should be subject to the 400m rule

Our Key Recommendations for Regulating Third Party Signs adjacent to Series 400 Highways

•Protect rural areas
•Safeguard against proliferation
•Ensure safety
•Create a fair and enforceable policy

The Right Signs in the Right Places

•Compatible landuses
•Static digital displays, no video
•Controlled dwell and transition times
•Strictly controlled illumination levels

Proper Approvals

•MTO should remain the final decision maker, however, the MTO policy should require local municipal council approval as a mandatory condition of approval for each specific new sign location

Controlling Distribution / Proliferation

•Market forces and municipal approvals
•Different rules and approaches for urban and non-urban areas
•Limiting signs to specific land uses
•Approval of new signs can be tied to the removal of old / poorly placed signs
•A strict or recommended minimum allowable distance between approved signs

Other Considerations

•Province should receive free advertising time for public service announcements, government promotions, and the MTO Compass program
•Province should be able to override digital signs during amber alerts and other emergency messaging
•Digitals signs will support energy conservation objectives through the use of green power supply

Doing it Right - a Case Study – Metrolinx Phases I and II

•A successful Digital Signage Program was implemented on Metrolinx properties in the GTA between 2012 and the present
•The program has/will remove a large number of outdated signs from neighbourhoods and replace them with a small number of signs in commercialized areas
•Phase I of the program (9 digital faces) is complete and will deliver $30m in government agency revenue and $10m in promotional value over the life of the contract to support transit projects
•Phase II of the Program (16 digital faces), which has already received municipal by-law approvals and is still subject to MTO approval, is projected to deliver $120m in government agency revenue and $30m in promotional value over the life of the contract

Introduction

The Ministry of Transportation is seeking feedback on the existing Corridor Signing Policy with respect to third party advertising signs within 400 metres of provincial highways. Specifically, what’s working, what isn’t, what are the challenges, and what are some ideas and solutions for making it work better.

We welcome the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on this important matter. To make our assessments we have drawn on our broad experience across North America working with federal, provincial, state and local jurisdictions. Our experience includes assisting public agencies with sign policy matters and creating tangible community benefits.

Why Should the Corridor Signing Policy governing Third Party Signs Along Series 400 Highways be Changed

The current policy controls third party advertising signs within 400 metres of all provincial highways. Furthermore, it expressly prohibits third party signs that are within 400 metres and are visible to any series-400 highway. It is this latter portion dealing with series-400 highways, mostly in Census Metropolitan Areas, that has created confusion and conflicts amongst property owners, sign operators and municipal governments.

Many property owners cannot understand why they can erect a first party sign on their property but can’t erect a third party sign of identical size, shape and height. Sign operators apply for and receive municipal permits only to find out that they are in contravention of the Corridor Signing Policy because their sign “may” be visible to the highway. Municipal authorities often become the enforcer of the provincial policy and act to have signs removed.

The removal of the 400m rule can be a real tool for governments to deliver the right signs in the right places. Often signs are forced into neighbourhoods because the rule prevents them from being in commercialized areas. The recent Metrolinx approval in Toronto is a great example of how signs from neighbourhoods can be replaced with far fewer signs in commercialized areas adjacent to series-400 Highways.

The exisiting 400 metre rule is doing more harm than good.

•It is creating conflicts between property owners, sign operators and municipal governments
•It is forcing signs into neighbourhoods and in some cases creating a nuisance to the community as attempts are made to steer clear of highways
•Prohibition has resulted in illegal third party signs with no controls leading to potential safety hazards
•Outdated Signs – silent on the use or misuse of new technologies
•Out of step with North American regulation

The policy should be replaced with one that recognizes that the right signs, in the right location, with the proper approvals can be safe and can be a benefit to the community.

Why New Technologies should be Recognized and Adopted in the Corridor Signing Policy

The outdoor advertising industry has transformed itself over the past several years. Digital technologies are rapidly redefining the industry as government jurisdictions across North America adopt new policies allowing static digital signs (no video or animation). These changes are allowing one of the oldest advertising mediums to become safe, modern, effective and efficient.

•Outdated static signs requiring manual paper/vinyl changes are being replaced with safe, modern, reliable state of the art digital signs that can be changed without the need to physically access the signs
•Digital signs allow for more effective messaging by providing instantaneous message changes, including the ability to interrupt regular advertising during periods of emergencies. Providing the use of non-government owned digital signs for the MTO Compass Program will not only extend the programs reach but will save the province millions of dollars
•Introduction of digital signs support energy conservation objectives through more efficient operating practices.

The Science on Safety

Numerous studies across North America have found that Digital Signs are safety neutral and do not increase the likelihood of accidents. The result has been a widespread acceptance of digital signs by government regulators. In fact, many governments use digital signs for their own safety messaging.

Below is a summary of some of the safety studies produced in the past decade:

•In 2013 two studies for the City of Toronto found no statistically significant relationship between digital signs and the frequency of accidents (prepared by CIMMA Partners for the City of Toronto)
•A 2014 Binnie & Associates engineering report concluded that after a 12 month study, 2 large digital advertising signs (14’x48’) along Highway 91 and Highway 91A on City of New Westminster properties, had no adverse impact on traffic safety
•In 2012 a peer reviewed human factors ground breaking research study by the USA Federal Highway Administration was released and concluded that billboards, static and digital, do not pose a risk to drivers
•Five studies conducted by Tantala Associates looking at 100 digital signs in 5 states over an 8 year period concluded there is no statistical relationship between digital signs and traffic accidents
•In a 2014 Tantala Associates report to the City of Toronto, concluded that digital signs like the ones proposed by Metrolinx along Highway 401 and 427 have no statistically significant relationship with the occurrence of accidents

Why the Policy should Differentiate between Urban and Rural

Many of the provincial highways that run through rural / or natural areas that are outside the already commercialized Census Metropolitan Areas are already regulated appropriately. Third party signs on King’s Highways are allowed (with specific restrictions) and “bush country signs” have their own unique set of regulations. We are not recommending any changes to these parts of the Policy. We recommend that third party signs in rural and agricultural areas outside of Census Metropolitan Areas should still be subject to the 400m rule.

What is happening in other jurisdictions?

Third party static digital advertising signs are accepted in most city, provincial, state and federal jurisdictions across North America. Regulations typically control dwell time, transition time, illumination levels and distance between signs. For example in the Province of Quebec digital signs have been allowed along freeways for many years. In recent years British Columbia has accepted digital signs along their freeways. Across the prairies, provincial regulations generally defer to municipal regulations in Urban Areas. City’s such as Toronto, Montreal Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Ottawa all allow digital signs with specific restrictions. In fact many municipalities benefit directly from having digital signs situated on their own properties. In the USA 45 out of 46 states permit third party digital signs on controlled freeways. Most of these states enforce dwell times between 6-10 seconds.

Our Key Recommendations for Regulating Third Party Signs adjacent to Series 400 Highways

Our recommendations strive to protect rural areas, safeguard against proliferation, ensure safety and create a fair and enforceable policy.

•Eliminate the 400 metre rule in Census Metropolitan Areas only
•While MTO should be the final decision maker on third party signs adjacent to its highways, it should largely rely on Municipal regulations to control placement (compatible landuses), size (maximum 65sq’), heights (20m because of many elevated highways), and setbacks (10m from right of way to account for wide multi-lane highways)
•Provincial sign approvals should be subject to first obtaining municipal approval
•Province could impose further safeguards around proliferation by stipulating compatible land uses only (ie. Rail, utilities, industrial, commercial)
•Minister should maintain a right to revoke any specific sign approval if there is a bona fide safety concern that cannot by mitigated
•The following restrictions should apply to digital signs:
-Static images only, no animation or video
-Static images should have a dwell time of no less than 10 seconds and a transition time between messages no more than 1 second
-Strict illumination limits should be imposed (300 nits from daybreak to sunset, 5000 nits from sunset to midnight)
-Minimum distance between digital signs of 1000 metres

Other Considerations and Benefits

•Controlling distribution/proliferation of signs should be achieved by market forces, municipal regulations, urban/rural differentiation, land use designations and distances between signs
•Giving greater control to municipalities may encourage a net reduction in overall signage (Cities often require the removal of several traditional static vinyl signs in adjacent neighbourhoods in return for approvals of new digital signs)
•Province to receive up to 10% of the advertising time for each digital sign approved along series-400 Highways for its Compass Program and other provincial initiatives
•The introduction of digitals signs will support energy conservation objectives by:
-Reduction in fossil fuel through elimination of vinyl/paper faces (as advertising dollars shift to the digital network less vinyl faces will be produced for traditional billboards).
-Reduction in carbon emissions through elimination of vehicles for posting messages (as advertising dollars shift to the digital network, less postings will occur on conventional billboards).
-Reduction in number of non-recyclable by-products (as advertising dollars shift to the digital network, less vinyl, glue, etc will be used).
-Electricity to be purchased through alternative energy companies who re-invest in alternative green energy sources such as wind and solar (ie. Bullfrog Power)

Doing it Right
A Case Study – Metrolinx Phases I and II

Allvision successfully implemented a Digital Signage Program on Metrolinx properties in the GTA between 2012 and the present. Phase I of the program (9 digital faces) is complete and will deliver $30m in government agency revenue and $10m in promotional value over the life of the contract. Phase II of the Program (16 digital faces), which is subject to MTO approval, is projected to deliver $120m in government agency revenue and $30m in promotional value over the life of the contract. A brief overview can be found below:

1.Allvision enters agreement with Metrolinx March, 2012 to Modernize Signage

2.Toronto Council Approves Phase 1 Modernization Program July 2012, including the replacement of 20 outdated static billboard structures with 5 state of the art digital signs

3.In Fall of 2012 Allvision Prepares Phase 2 Modernization Program, involving the replacement of 39 outdated billboard structures with 4 state of the art digital signs adjacent to series-400 Highways (401, 427), as well as 3 digital billboard structures along Highway 407 in Vaughan and Markham.

4.Phase 2 Program is approved by Metrolinx in Fall of 2012

5.Allvision presents Modernization Plan to MTO Staff in Fall of 2012

6.Minster Chiarelli (MTO) issues letter to Metrolinx to work with MTO staff on a “pilot project to locate digital billboards on government property adjacent to series-400- Highways”.

7.Allvision engages safety, lighting and urban planning professionals to prepare comprehensive reports for presentation to local government

8.Allvision receives written support from political representative in affected ridings and wards

9.Further endorsements received from key Cabinet Ministers

10. Phase 2 Modernization Program Approved by respective City Councils in City of Vaughan in 2013, City of Markham in 2014 and City of Toronto in 2014, including community messaging access by respective municipalities, and Amber Alert override capabilities.

11. Allvision presents locally approved Modernization Program to Minister Del Duca in July 2014

[Original Comment ID: 205382]