Summary of Transportation Association of Canada DPAD Regulatory and Road Safety Assessment Guidelines

Transcription

1 Summary of Transportation Association of Canada DPAD Regulatory and Road Safety Assessment Guidelines In spring 2015, the Transportation Association of Canada released the long anticipated report from a multi-year project studying Digital and Projected Advertising Display Technologies (from here on DPADs). The purpose of these guidelines is intended to assist Canadian municipalities with: developing their own digital sign regulations (on-premise Electronic Message Centres and off-premise Digital billboards), evaluating DPAD permit applications, and assessing their potential road safety impact. While this research has been long anticipated, updates from staff and from conferences gave little advance indication into the end result. Overview: The Transportation Association of Canada retained the MORR Consulting group to do this research. The following 13 cities and provincial agencies provided funding for this project: Alberta Transportation; British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; City of Calgary; City of Edmonton; City of Ottawa; City of Saskatoon; City of Toronto; Halifax Regional Municipality; Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation; Ministère des Transports du Québec; Ministry of Transportation Ontario; Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure; Ville de Montréal. The report is 115 pages long and available in print or as an ebook for $199 CAD. According to the report, these guidelines are applicable for all road types and are specific to road safety; they do not consider the aesthetic, nuisance, economic, or other factors associated with these types of signs. Their aim is to encourage consistent practice across Canada. The Guidelines are divided into three main sections: Part A: Introduction and Fundamentals Part B: Guidelines for Developing and Applying DPAD Regulations Part C: Guidelines for Assessing the Road Safety Impact of DPADs Guidelines are founded on the following five principles; p.15: 1. Safety: Public safety should be the primary concern of a jurisdiction and road safety professional. Consequently, regulations and by-laws should control the distracting effects of DPADs to limit the increase in collision risk. 2. Consistency: Guidelines should recommend regulating DPADs such that they emulate static advertising signs. 3. Specificity: DPAD guidelines should pertain only to issues unique to DPADs and not issues that are common to all advertising signs. 4. Evidence-based: Guidelines should be evidence-based, scientifically supported, and sensitive to local conditions as much as possible. 5. Pragmatism: Regulations should be pragmatic and enforceable. Research limitations and challenges (as stated by TAC); p.13: Despite years of research there have been no definitive conclusions about the presence or strength of adverse safety impacts of DPADs measured by increased collision frequency. This inconclusiveness is 1

2 primarily due to the research methods available and applied to establish a relationship between DPADs and road safety. Commonly used methodologies are post-hoc collision studies, field investigations, and laboratory experiments. The research challenges and limitations preclude research findings from being the sole basis for creating guidelines. Rather they are one of the three inputs (the others being human factors and road safety engineering principles and current practice). Risk Management; p.18: TAC maintains that these guidelines represent a departure from traditional road safety approaches and practice. Furthermore, they add that from a strict road safety perspective, DPADs (and any other form of advertising or non-essential roadside feature) should be prohibited. However, this may not be practical, feasible, or desirable and risks violating freedom of expression rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore these guidelines are designed to simultaneously accommodate industry needs and rights and control increases in road safety collision risk. Each individual jurisdiction is at liberty to select their approach to risk management and, if selecting the pragmatic risk acceptance approach, they are also at liberty to decide on criteria and thresholds. Recommended DPAD Regulations 1. On-Premise DPAD Frame Duration Recommendations: 20seconds on premise; 8 seconds off premise if >300 m spacing; p.39: - The minimum on-premise DPAD frame duration should be a function of the posted speed limit, road type (urban, suburban, rural), the maximum number of DPADs permitted within a driver s field of view, traffic volume, crash history of the roadway, mean glance duration towards DPADs, and the increased crash risk associated with these glances. - On-premise DPAD frame durations of 20s or longer can limit increases in collisions due to distraction of these signs to less than 5%. 2. On-Premise DPAD Density Recommendations: Maximum of 3 on premise DPADs per decision sight distance ; p.43: - Jurisdictions should set a maximum on-premise DPAD density per decision sight distance rather than a minimum spacing between signs. -The maximum density should be determined by dividing the decision sight distance by the maximum number of DPADs they will allow within a driver s field of view. -Although following this recommendation does not define a fixed minimum spacing between onpremise DPADs, if 2 to 3 DPADs are equally distributed along the decision sight distance of a roadway, the spacing is similar to jurisdictions that have established minimum spacing criteria (i.e., an average spacing between 50m and 150m between) signs. 2

3 -If there is an off-premise DPAD within the driver s field of view, the number of on-premise DPADs should be reduced accordingly. For example, if a jurisdiction s policy is to permit a maximum of 3 DPADs per field of view, if there is an off-premise DPAD within this field, then only 2 on-premise DPADs should be permitted. 3. Transition Time and Effects Recommendations: Instantaneous; p.48: -The transition time between frames should be as close to instantaneous as possible and less than.25s -Visual effects between successive frames (eg. Flashing, fading, blinking, dissolving) should be prohibited 4. Message Sequencing and text scrolling Recommendations: Sequencing/scrolling prohibited; if sequencing allowed only 2 frames; p.50: -In general, message sequencing should be prohibited for both on- and off- premise DPADs. -If jurisdictions do permit message sequencing, it should only be permitted for on-premise DPADs, the number of sequences should be limited to two, and the duration of each message should be the same frame duration as determined in Section 4.1. (On-premise DPAD duration) 5. Brightness Recommendations: 0.3 fc above ambient consistent with ISA recommendation; p.52: -Brightness should be regulated using illumination because it considers the surrounding light environment and more accurately reflects how a driver perceives the brightness of the sign relative to the overall light condition. -Maximum DPAD brightness should be limited to 0.3 foot candles above ambient light. 6. Proximity to Traffic Control Devices Recommendations; p.54: -DPADs should be prohibited in the proximity of any traffic sign or signal that is illuminated or has variable or moving displays. Examples are traffic signals, pedestrian crossings with flashing beacons, railroad crossing signals, variable message signs, or any other signs with changeable messages or flashing beacons. -The area surrounding these traffic control devices where DPADs are prohibited should be variable and defined based on the posted speed limit, sight distance to the traffic control device, and location of the traffic control device. Appendix D recommends a method for determining where to prohibit DPADs. 3

4 7. Proximity to Decision Making Points p.54: Key decision making points include: interchanges, lane drops and/or additions, intersections, pedestrian crossings, rail crossings, toll plazas, and work zones. Recommendations: -DPADs should be prohibited in the proximity of interchanges, intersections, pedestrian crossings and work zones. -Jurisdictions that already have by-law restricting advertising signs near key decision making points should apply it to DPADs. -The area surrounding these decision-making points where DPADs are prohibited should be variable and defined based on posted speed limit and type of decision-making point. 4

5 8. Animation Recommendations; p58: - From a human factors perspective, animation on DPADs should be prohibited. - While these guidelines recommend prohibiting animation, there are some instances where animation may not have a road safety impact. For example, animated DPADs that are not visible to drivers such as within a pedestrian mall. In these instances animation may be permitted from a road safety perspective. Permit Approval Conditions; p65: -The DPAD must be equipped with ambient light sensors -The DPAD must operate with a maximum brightness of.3fc above ambient light levels. - Animation is not permitted - The transition time between frames must be instantaneous and cannot have special transition effects such as fading, dissolving, or animation - If the DPAD malfunctions, the display should default to a black screen. - For off-premise DPADs, the frame duration must be a minimum of 8s. - For on-premise DPADs, the frame duration must be a minimum of 20s. - If the permit application is for an on-premise DPAD, only first-party content may be displayed. - DPADs will be required to operate as static signs or be shut off if they become situated within a temporary road work or construction zone. 5

6 SAC-ACE s position: It is our position that the Transportation Association of Canada has come up with guidelines that are very conservative and, if applied by municipalities, could have an adverse effect on businesses looking to use the digital signs to attract business as well as the digital sign industry. The Sign Association of Canada supports safe guidelines that are based on well-founded research and facts. While TAC admits there have been no studies that have definitively demonstrated that on-premise digital signs located near intersections or other decision points increase traffic accidents, the whole TAC report is based on the underlying premise that DPADs are designed to distract. There is a fundamental difference between distraction and attraction. Signs have been certainly designed to attract passerby s attention to advertise a certain product or service. However, we believe that this differs from distracting drivers passing on-premise signs. When done right, on-premise digital signs are no brighter or distracting than non-digital illuminated signs. Properly done digital signs reduce clutter, decrease the amount of unprofessional looking signs and make unreadable signs readable. Ministries of Transportation across most Canadian provinces use digital signs to inform motorists of the road and traffic conditions ahead. In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation states that these next-generation signs produce clearer traffic symbols -improving readability about changing highway conditions and construction. With the added recommended restrictions put forth by these TAC guidelines, whereby digital signs are required to emulate static advertising signs, there should be no difference in the sign regulations between on-premise illuminated signs and on-premise digital signs. 6