On behalf of: Clear Channel…

On behalf of: Clear Channel Outdoor, Astral Outdoor and Pattison Outdoor

EBR Registry Number: 012-8680
Ministry: Ministry of Transportation
Third Party Advertising Along Provincial Highways

Introduction
In response to the above referenced EBR posting, which was posted on September 29 2016, the following submission is made on behalf of Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising Canada; Pattison Outdoor Advertising; and Astral Out of Home Advertising. These three companies (the companies) are market leaders in Ontario and Canada, with significant investments in billboards, electronic and digital signs, and other advertising assets within the province. The companies appreciate the opportunity to provide input into this review.

Underlying Principles
The companies acknowledge that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), as part of the Government of Ontario in its entirety, is guided by certain principles that are integral in its governance of the province. Included among these are fairness, transparency, and equal treatment of people and entities, which is neither preferential nor discriminatory. The companies will rely on the assumption that these principles will be applied in this case whether in matters of enforcement of existing signs and/or the future approvals of any new or proposed signs not currently erected today.

What Is or Isn’t Working
MTO is not applying consistency in the interpretation, on an application by application basis, to the Corridor Signing Policy. This is creating unfairness in the approval/rejection of applications and is not in keeping with best practices. Years of virtually no enforcement have resulted in a large number of illegal signs, especially on the 401 and 400 highways around Toronto. While it is wrong to break the rules by building illegal signs, that cycle has been perpetuated by the absence of enforcement. Similarly, throughout the province, aging semi-truck trailers have found new life as roadside billboards. The lack of enforcement and punishment has led to ongoing abuses and should be stopped.

Are There Challenges
Over time, it appears that the basis for historical decisions may no longer be relevant, lack internal resource continuity (staffing changes and current staff do not know/understand the basis of previous decisions) and have become subject to ambiguity and inconsistent outcomes.

Case in point, Section 3.2 of the Corridor Signing Policy reads as follows: All visible signs within 400 metre limit. The MTO are interpreting as an overall measurement regardless of whether it is visible from a provincial highway or not.

Case in point: The companies do not know if staff is making a decision based upon doing a physical site drive of a location, or simply pulling the location up on Google maps and rendering a decision.

Case in point: There is no consistency in the time allocated to process an application. Applications are taking an unreasonable and uneconomical processing time.

There never has been a formal process in place of MTO reviewing sign applications in conjunction with a municipality, especially in the case of third party advertising signage. MTO in conjunction with the municipality and the applicant need a formal process to be put in place that spells out the processes need and currently very absent.

Ideas and Solutions
The companies encourage the MTO to continuously review and amend its Commercial Corridor Signage Policy. We believe that the policy, as currently practiced is antiquated in its lack of consideration for new technologies and infrastructure that can improve and inform traffic conditions, weather notifications, amber alerts and contribute to our economies efforts to promote businesses, tourism and safety.
Once Ontario’s provincial highways are cleaned up and free of illegal signs, it might be possible to enter a new regime of MTO controlled permits for a number of new signs but only under a clear set of guidelines that ensure revenue for the Province, a fair and competitive process for companies interested in building third party signs on highways and vista for highway travelers that is unimpeded and does not unduly increase driver distraction.

The companies encourage MTO to allow digital signage for informational purposes but also to include commercial-advertising opportunities. There are many compelling arguments in support of this position:
•There is no proven correlation to traffic safety/accidents and digital advertising signage. In fact, there are studies that suggest signs play a role in reducing accidents,
•There is no difference, from a driver-perspective, of non-advertising signage and advertising signage,
•Digital signage provides opportunities for the MTO to distribute emergency messaging, amber alerts, weather and traffic advisory with minimal lead-in time,
•Digital signage provides substantial benefits to the tourism industry and other economic beneficiaries

We encourage the MTO to maintain fairness in its implementation and management of its Commercial Corridor Signage Policy:
•The MTO should never condone illegally placed signage and should work with municipalities to enforce and remove those signs that are not legally permitted
•Illegally placed signs should not be eligible for consideration of permit while they remain erected. In granting permits to illegal signage, the Province and municipalities indirectly encourage illegal signs through the concept of “easier to gain forgiveness than permission” approaches
•MTO could further consider allowing digital signage at Metrolinx or any other Provincial locations provided that it allowed the private-sector with a fair, impartial and properly procured process
•Signage, once legally placed, should have reporting requirements in order to capture additional property tax to municipalities.

The companies believe that the MTO must carefully review its policies and make reasonable determinations as to physical characteristics of signage including size, message dwell time, brightness and separation and set-back. The Province of Quebec employs a highway sign policy that MTO can consider going forward.

The companies suggest the time and funds required to set up a 1-2 day workshop, consisting of MTO, and municipal staff, in conjunction with the industry would be well spent. Between all interested parties, it should be possible to develop what will work and most importantly acceptable to all parties moving forward.

Contacts:

Paul Seeman, Clear Channel Outdoor, PaulSeaman@clearchannel.com
Luc Beaulieu, Astral Outdoor, lbeaulieu@outofhome.astral.com
Sid Catalano, Pattison Outdoor, scatalano@pattisonoutdoor.com

[Original Comment ID: 205427]