November 21, 2016…

November 21, 2016

Arielle Mayer
Senior Policy Advisor
Ministry of Transportation
Policy and Planning Division
Transportation Planning Branch
Environmental Policy Office (Toronto)

777 Bay Street
Suite 3000
Toronto ON
M5J 2J8

Ms. Mayer,
Re:Soheil Mosun Limited (“SML”) Submissions re: EBR Registry number 012-8680 – Third-Party Advertising Along Provincial Highways

Introduction

We are pleased to make this submission to the MTO’s public consultation regarding the Corridor Signing Policy (the “Policy”). We welcome the invitation to comment on improvements to the Policy, and we appreciate that our views will be considered as the Ministry makes decisions about third-party advertising along provincial highways.

We submit that any decisions regarding the enforcement and/or improvement of the Policy should allow current holders of sign permits to use their existing, permitted signs for purposes other than first-party, location-specific advertising. In our view, the distinction between first-party and third-party signage is irrelevant to the objectives of the Policy and should be abolished.

We also submit that any improvements to the Policy should provide clear provision for LED signage.

SML and its Permitted Signage

We are a world-renowned manufacturing exporter specializing in custom architectural fabrication. Our family business has been creating employment within the City of Toronto since 1973. We operate out of a 35,000 square foot premises at 34 Greensboro Drive near the junction of Highways 401 and 409. We are part of the economic engine of the region. We employ over 40 people.

Since 2002, pursuant to a valid MTO permit, we have displayed two first-party ground signs located at the front and rear of 34 Greensboro. The signs are visible from Highway 401 and Highway 409 respectively, and are therefore subject to the Policy.

Proposed Improvements to the Policy – Third-Party Advertising

We respectfully submit that the Policy’s prohibition on third-party advertising adjacent to Class 1 and 2 highways is unnecessary for the purposes of the policy and deleterious to our business. The Policy would be strengthened if this prohibition were removed, or if signs permitted under Section 8 could permissibly display third-party advertising in addition to locational advertising.

Right now, Sections 8 and 9 of the Policy combine to prohibit our signs from displaying third-party advertising and from promoting other community events, suppliers or partners. As a result, our signs display the name of our business and nothing else. It is our current intention to continue advertising the business. However, the flexibility to display other content would increase the value of our business and increase our capacity to support our community.

As set out in the Proposal Notice, the purpose of the Policy is “to balance the potential for advertisement opportunities with driver distraction, aesthetic and environmental concerns, and the nature and location of appropriate advertising displays.”

We do not believe that the issues of driver distraction, aesthetic/environmental concerns, and appropriateness are affected by whether an advertisement is first-party or third-party. We do not find it a useful distinction for the purposes of this policy.

We make this submission for a number of reasons:

•The line between first and third party is blurred. A convenience store may erect an identification sign that includes a giant “Mars Bar” logo as a first-party sign.

•Second-party signage is proliferating. This is signage that advertises a third-party product that is either sold on the premises or is a sponsor of the premises. The effect of these signs is the same as a third-party sign.

•With digital technology, one can have first, second, and third-party messages displayed at different times on the same sign face. This is an option which we would likely use for our signs, supporting, among other things, local community events and our business partners while also providing location signage information.

•In terms of proliferation, impact on public space, safety, and environmental concerns, first-party signage has the same effect as third-party signage. Since graphics and catchphrases are permitted under the existing Section 8.1(m), first-party advertising has the potential to be at least as distracting, unsafe or aesthetically unpleasant as any third-party advertising.

•What matters for the purposes of the Policy’s objectives is ‘how’ the copy is erected and displayed, not ‘what’ the copy seeks to accomplish.

The various provisions of the Policy regulating sign location, sizing, dimensions, directionality, illumination, and mechanization, particularly given the requirement that advertisements be in good taste, are sufficient to ensure that the users of the corridor are appropriately protected.

Accordingly, our position is that the Policy would be improved by removing the distinction between first-party and third-party advertising in Sections 8 and 9, or to otherwise provide a clear path to allowing signage initially permitted under Section 8 to be used for third-party purposes (including non-commercial ones).

Enforcement

We note also that enforcement of the Policy has been inconsistent and uneven. In our area, we are aware of certain third-party billboards which appear to be unlawfully erected adjacent to Class 1 and Class 2 highways, including the use of LED display boards. This puts our business (which has been lawfully compliant with the Ministry’s regulatory regime since 2002) at a revenue disadvantage. Removing this distinction would allow us to compete on equal footing with these signs, which are likely to proliferate in any event.

Removing this distinction would also recognize the reality and advancement of the industry and remove unnecessary burdens of enforcement from the Ministry.

LED Signage

We also submit that the Policy would be significantly improved by adding clear provisions around LED signage. The environmental impact of signage in the Corridor is a significant concern of the Policy. We are conscious of the need to use biodegradable product, environmentally friendly materials and energy-efficient illumination methods. Right now, the Policy provides no direction on the nature and scope of permissible LED signage. This should be a necessary part of any future amendments to the Policy.

To assist the Ministry in its consideration of LED signage within its highway corridors, we propose that the Ministry initiate a pilot project wherein select locations are permitted to erect LED signage for a set period of time. This pilot project would allow the Ministry to evaluate the impact such signage might have, while also considering elements of LED signage that could be regulated through an appropriate Ministry policy – issues such as size, orientation, brightness, frequency of message change, animation, etc. As 34 Greensboro Drive has existing signs with exposure to two access-controlled highways, we propose that our site would be ideal to participate in such a pilot project and we would welcome the opportunity.

Conclusion

SML wishes to contribute to the Ministry’s efforts towards a contemporary sign regulator regime that supports new technology and the well-being of local businesses. We look forward to discussing the topics raised in this submission further, along with ways in which these recommendations can be implemented, keeping in mind that the ultimate goal is a clear, workable Policy that protects Corridor users and can be fairly and evenly enforced, but that also recognizes the advantages of advertising to community businesses like ourselves.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns with respect to this document, please contact the undersigned. We look forward to hearing the results of this consultation soon.

Yours very truly,

Darius F. Mosun
CEO
Soheil Mosun Limited
dmosun@mosun.com

[Original Comment ID: 196742]