On October 6th 2011 the Planning and Growth Management Committee is expected to approve a recommendation to install 10 (or 17 if you count the extra sides) new large illuminated electronic billboards along traffic routes, including the Gardiner, that run near CN railway land in exchange for removing 40 non-electronic and much smaller billboards along CN rail land.
The report suggests that Toronto is overly cluttered with billboards, and that removing these in exchange for some larger illuminated billboards may contribute to the city’s aesthetic. While the TPSI also wishes to see an improved the city aesthetic we believe that installing much larger illuminated billboards is the wrong way to do so.
Ironic Billboard Highlights Danger of Driver Distraction
TPSI has reviewed the plan and is concerned about 1) Electronic Billboards and Driver Safety, 2) Impacts on Residential Neighbourhoods, and 3) a Lack of Consultation.
Electronic Billboards and Driver Safety
TPSI is concerned about serious safety issues surrounding billboards in general, including static electronic billboards, which this proposal fails to address.
Page 5 of the Staff Report contains a list of the new billboard locations. A quick look at a map in google street view suggests that billboard 3, 4, 6, and 7 will be along major roadways while billboards 8, 9, and 10 will be installed along the Gardiner aka ‘Billboard Alley’.
This is a problem. Many studies link billboards, electronic or otherwise, to increased driver distraction and lower road safety. These include statistical and empirical studies ‘on the ground’ as well as advanced driving simulator studies ‘in the laboratory’. However, many studies also suggest that billboards are safe – the problem being that many of these appear to be funded by the outdoor advertising industry itself.
In the 2009 publication “Safety Impacts of the emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs” Jerry Wachel conducts a major literature review of research on driver safety and billboards suggesting that research sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry generally concludes that there are no adverse effects from bright and digital billboards, even in a case where the actual study findings indicated otherwise. However, according to the report, studies by government, insurance companies, and auto safety groups regularly demonstrate bright roadside ads such LED and digital billboards contribute to driver distraction and lower road safety.
A study titled the “Effects of advertising billboards during simulated driving”, in Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 619-626, is one of many ‘controlled laboratory’ studies which connects billboards to driver distraction, lower response time, and increased driving task errors, especially in new drivers and older drivers. It found that the distraction delayed drivers for 1/2 to 1 second, or 20 meters in a vehicle travelling 70km/h.
This delay can be deadly. According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles 80% of crashes and 65% of near crashes involve driver distraction within 3 seconds of a crash. The California DMV cites looking at billboards as a potential distraction.
Another study titled “The role of roadside advertising signs in distracting drivers”, in the International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40 (2010) 233-236, provides an example of another controlled simulator experiment linking roadside advertising to declined driving performance and increased danger. In addition, “Conflicts of interest: The implications of roadside advertising for driver attention”, Transportation Research Part F (2009) 381-388, researchers use simulation and find that roadside advertising undermines driver attention and lateral control.
Toronto staff have also made recommendations against bright and distracting signage and billboards along major expressways numerous times.
For example, this staff report commenting on a variance application for a bright LED sign on Wickman Road on the QEW states that, “The Transportation Division sited “The Human Factors” study conducted in 2004 for Transportation Services that showed that drivers will take their eyes off the roadway to look at these types of signs for a greater length of time. Based on the findings of that report it was found that most traffic collisions in the city are attributed to driver error, suggesting that permitting additional distractions will decrease the safety performance on the roadway.”
Another staff report for a bright LED sign on 1001 Finch W. states that “The use of the LED screen displays was not supported for the reason that current sign technologies may allow for variations in content and contrast that will increasingly distract drivers operating vehicles.”
Numerous other Toronto staff reports make similar recommendations against bright and distracting billboards and signage.
There is ample other evidence linking billboards, bright or otherwise, to driver distraction and significantly reduced traffic safety.
Is should also be noted that several American jurisdictions have banned bright distracting billboards, including Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and six locations in Texas, among other jurisdictions around the globe that have billboard bans and restrictions, including Ontario which has limited distracting advertising along portions of its major highways.
TPSI believes the most prudent course of action is for the city to follow the precautionary principle and reject this proposal until billboards, and especially bright back-lit billboards and signage, can be proven safe for drivers.
Impacts on Residential Neighbourhoods
Page 5 of the Staff Report contains a list of the new billboard locations. A quick look at a map in google street view raises concerns about the potential impact of residences near billboards 2 and 6, especially because these are larger and illuminated.
Extensive community consultation, testing and mapping of the glare and lighting impacts on residential neighbourhoods must be undertaken to ensure that they are not negatively impacted by these new billboards. Otherwise these illuminated signs may interfere with sleep and the enjoyment of property, among other things, for nearby residents. Property values could also be harmed – depending on the impact.
Lack of Consultation
The lack of transparency and community consultation is a serious flaw – especially in light of all of the major issues and doubts surrounding it. Dave Meslin’s blog contains a useful set of recommendations when it comes to how these communities should be consulted, including proper notice and the opportunity to provide meaningful input.
Email your Local Councillor Now
Click on this link to find your Local Councillor and tell them your concerns over driver safety, the impact on residences, and the lack of transparency and consultation. Tell them they should be concerned about these issues too and that they should refer this plan back to staff to review these important matters.
Click on this link to submit a comment to the Planning and Growth Committee, using the second button near the top right of the page.
Background
