Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26-05 Holiday Signs Non-Conforming Sign Appeal - Opequon - Backfilei BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Variance Request Tracking Sheet Date: / //3 0 File opened Reference Manual updated/number assigned 1 LO� D-base updated 1 ��e location map requested from GIS Two sets of labels requested from Data Processing File given to Renee' to update Application Action Summary i MEETING DATE: —LA A4-0.2:FINAL ACTION: M I j = CLOSE OUT FILE: /�-a-k g—Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant/copy made for file L4140 File stamped "approved", "denied" or "withdrawn" o S Reference Manual updated D-base updated l O5 File given to Renee' for final update to Application Action Summary o U-\Bev\Common\Tracking shee[s\BZA Tra&ing bza Revised 05R5/01 99 AMT CASH AMT. PAID ECK BY B I MONEY RDER I AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT ( I AMT. PAID CHECK ,'- BALANCE I MONEY D ORDER BY No.7 DATE " ® RECEIVED FROM m O co ADDRESS cc DOLLARS FOR 9 0 Go � � CASH 7DUE71 CHECKMONEYORDER RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS FOR BY DATE NO. AMTO CCOT I AMTPAID K ( BALANCE Y ORDER BY DOLLARS $ UN ITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 211 Radcliffe Street Bristol, PA 19007-5013 215-785-1922 Fax: 215-788-8395 RESEARCH REVIEW / ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER RESEARCH REVIEW A Research Project Of The UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION By Philip M. Garvey The Visual Communication Research Institute State College, Pennsylvania and Martin T. Pietrucha The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania Funded by research grants provided by The United States Sign Council Foundation Inc. 211 Radcliffe Street, Bristol, PA 19007 215-785-1922 / Fax: 215-788-8395 © 2005 United States Sign Council Foundation Inc. All Rights Reserved 10 10 I• ■� Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 HOWEFFECTIVE ARE EMCs?............................................................................................... 2 How much information is too much?...................................................................................... 3 What effect does driving have on sign reading?..................................................................... 5 How large should EMC letters be?......................................................................................... 5 People read words and sentences, not letters!........................................................................ 7 Whatabout color?................................................................................................................... 8 Whatabout font?..................................................................................................................... 8 What about letter, word, and line spacing?............................................................................ 8 Is lowercase more legible than uppercase?............................................................................ 9 Does contrast orientation (or polarity) have an effect?......................................................... 9 Are symbols better than text?................................:............................................................... 10 Doabbreviations work?........................................................................................................ 11 What is the impact of sign brightness?................................................................................. 12 Howabout contrast?............................................................................................................. 13 How should long sign messages be displayed? (Paging and Streaming) ............................. 13 How fast should sign information move?.............................................................................. 14 WHAT ARE THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF EMCs?.................................................... 15 EyeMovement Research....................................................................................................... 15 Driver attention in the presence of static commercial signs ................................................. 17 Driver attention in the presence of EMCs............................................................................ 18 Crashes in the presence of static commercial signs............................................................. 18 Crashes in the presence of EMCs......................................................................................... 20 EMC ZONING REGULATIONS............................................................................................ 22 WHAT ARE THE PRESSING EMC RESEARCH NEEDS? .................................................. 22 Viewing a dynamic sign from a moving vehicle.................................................................... 24 Regulationsand Safety.......................................................................................................... 26 RecommendedResearch....................................................................................................... 27 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A Annotated Bibliography......................................................................................... 1 iii • INTRODUCTION The Electronic Display Manufacturers Association (EDMA, 2004) defines electronic message centers (EMCs) as signs that are "controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program ... that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer -generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television -quality video (these displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text)." EMCs are also known as video billboards, electronic billboards, and electronic message displays. For the purposes of outdoor advertising, EMC manufacturer and distributor Lightvision Media Network of Vancouver has characterized EMCs as, "Where television meets outdoors" (Brill, 2002). Although typical transportation applications are restricted to the use of static letters and, in rare instances, select symbols, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines EMCs as "programmable displays that have the capability to present a large amount of text and/or • symbolic imagery. Some [EMCs] present images in realistic motion and in a large variety of colors" (FHWA, 2001). In the transportation community, where much of the research on these signs has been conducted, they are called changeable, dynamic, or variable message signs (CMS, VMS, or DMS, respectively). While there are numerous uses for EMCs that range from streaming video boards, through outdoor advertising, on -premise information, and finally traffic advisory, to the extent possible this paper will refer to three distinct sign types: CMS for transportation applications; on premise EMC for commercial or civic announcement signs, and off -premise EMC for "billboard" or outdoor advertising signs. The terms "commercial EMC" and `EMC" will be used in generic boundary -crossing discussions. A recent FHWA memorandum (Paniatti, 2003) included the statement, "While CMS can be a very effective method of providing information to motorists, [given the time constraints of a driving audience] they can convey only a limited amount of information and may not be the safest or most effective method in many cases." Lightvision Media (among other off premise EMC manufacturers) see the prime location for these devices as "very high traffic, slow moving (road bottlenecks) spots such as merging lanes or bridge or tunnel entrances that slow down passing vehicles" (Brill, 2002). This conceptual disparity is part of what has made the commercial roadway application of EMCs so contentious. The original objective of this paper was to synthesize a review of existing literature on • the effectiveness and safety of EMCs used as on -premise and off -premise commercial signs. The intent was to provide a resource for the EMC industry and to identify gaps in the research that could be bridged by further investigation. Unfortunately, there has been little research conduced specifically on commercial EMCs; and therefore, the synthesis is based mainly on the results of static and dynamic highway sign research and basic human factors concepts. The fundamental lessons learned from these studies concerning highway sign effectiveness and safety will be applicable to EMCs, however commercial and highway sign messages and sign characteristics differ significantly, therefore, it is highly recommended that the findings reported on herein be verified by further research using commercial EMCs. For the purposes of this paper, EMC effectiveness is defined as the visibility and comprehensibility of EMC messages, and EMC safety is defined as the potential of these signs to distract roadway users, which could possibly contribute to an increase in motor vehicle crashes in the vicinity of the signs. The effectiveness analysis consists primarily of non-commercial EMC research (i.e., CMS), while the safety review is based on the limited literature that has addressed EMCs specifically and the somewhat larger database on commercial signs in general. • An annotated bibliography can be found in Appendix A. HOW EFFECTIVE ARE EMCs? The ability of an EMC to effectively communicate with roadway users is a function of its capacity to communicate visual information quickly, as signs on the roadway are typically read by drivers in a series of short (less than one second) glances. If the target audience is pedestrians, motor vehicle passengers, or drivers of vehicles stopped in traffic or at an intersection, the time allotted for this "communication" would be longer. All of the research uncovered for this paper addressed the needs of vehicle operators driving in "free flow" conditions at normal operating speeds. The potential need for research on audiences other than vehicle operators in free flow conditions (e.g., pedestrians, passengers) is discussed at the end of this paper. In lieu of any direct research on the visual communication strengths and weaknesses of commercial EMCs, this analysis relied heavily on published reports on static highway signs and changeable message signs used by public sector transportation agencies. The following • section addresses variables that impact the effectiveness of all highway signs and should be applicable to the optimization of EMC communication. 2 • How much information is too much? Knowledge of how people assimilate visual information is critical to understanding the amount of information that can be effectively displayed on any individual roadway sign. Basic data on how quickly people read sign content (either text or pictures) while operating a motor vehicle should drive sign content limits. To find that type of data, the literature on human reading capacity was surveyed. Proffitt, et al. (1998) reported 250 words per minute (4.2 words per second or one word every quarter second) as the average "normal" reading speed for adults. Research on highway sign reading, however, provides evidence that it takes drivers anywhere from 0.5 to 2.0 seconds to read and process a single sign word. Studies that have evaluated a concept known as "optimum acuity reserve" (i.e., the ratio between the smallest legible copy and the optimal print size for reading) explains some of the disparity between "normal" reading speed of above size -threshold text (such as a book) and the time it takes to read a sign while driving, which often begins at the smallest size/largest distance at which the words just become readable. Optical character recognition research has demonstrated that the fastest reading speeds result from print size that may be as much as four times size threshold (Bowers and Reid, 1997; • Yager, et al., 1998; Lovie-Kitchin, et al., 2000). In fact, in their reading rate calculations Yager, et al. (1998) used 0.0 words per minute as a basic assumption for reading speed at size threshold. Psychological factors play an important part in sign reading speed. McNees and Messer (1982) found that the time it takes to read a sign depends, among other things, on how much time the driver has to read it (i.e., signs are read faster when it is necessary to do so). They also found that as reading speed increases so do errors (the well known speed/accuracy tradeoff). Proffitt, et al. (1998) stated that longer words need to have a larger letter height than shorter words and that short, standard messages with symbols, using mixed case letters and no abbreviations, are easier and more likely to be read by passing motorists. In general, Proffitt, et al. (1998) suggested that drivers are more likely to read signs if doing so requires little effort and if the sign content is brief text or symbols. Dudek (1991) recommended a minimum exposure time of "one second per short word ... or two seconds per unit of information" for unfamiliar drivers to read changeable message signs. In a study conducted by Mast and Balias (1976), the average time spent reading advance static guide signs (signs before the exit) was 3.12 seconds and the average time spent • reading exit direction signs was 2.28 seconds; these researchers did not specify the number of words on the signs. Also without specifying the number of sign words, McNees and Messer 3 (1982) concluded that, "a cut-off of approximately 4.0 seconds to read any [static] sign was • critical for safe handling of a vehicle along urban freeways." In another study of static traffic signs, Smiley, et al. (1998) found that 2.5 seconds was sufficient for 94 percent of their subjects to accurately read signs that contained three destination names; however that performance level dropped to 88 percent when the signs displayed four or five names. Specifically looking at changeable message signs in a laboratory environment, Dudek and Ullman (2002) (also reported in Ullman, 2001) found that flashing a message to attract driver attention significantly increased the time motorists needed to read the sign. These researchers also found that flashing only one part of a message not only increased reading time, but also reduced the retention of the message on the rest of the sign. These researchers recommended that messages exceeding the information capable of being transmitted on a single CMS screen or frame should be avoided if possible. In the section on CMS message content in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the FHWA made the following recommendations: • The message should be as brief as possible. • Signs should be limited to not more than three lines with not more than 20 characters per • line. • No more than two displays should be used within any message cycle. • When a message is longer than two phases, additional changeable message signs should be used. • Each display should convey a single thought. • When abbreviations are used, they should be easily understood. • The entire message cycle should be readable at least twice by drivers traveling the posted speed, the off-peak 85th-percentile speed, or the operating speed. (USDOT, 2003) While it is unrealistic to expect a single minimum time to allow all drivers to read and understand any sign, the research on sign reading speed discussed above indicates that signs displaying one word could be comfortably read and comprehended in approximately 1.0 second, signs with two to three words could be read in 2.5 seconds, and signs with four to eight words in 4.0 seconds. • n • What effect does driving have on sign reading? In addition to reading signs, drivers must also watch the road and perform other driving tasks. Using calculations from McNees' and Messer's (1982) research on overhead static guide signs, for drivers to have 4.0 seconds of sign reading time, a sign would have to be legible for 10.0 seconds. This results from adding 2.0 seconds for sign clearance time (when the sign is at too great an angle to be read comfortably) and 8.0 seconds divided equally between 4.0 seconds of sign reading and 4.0 seconds for other driving tasks. In looking at static highway signs mounted on the road shoulder, Smiley, et al. (1998) provided less conservative estimates. These researchers allowed for 0.5 seconds clearance time and a 0.5 seconds glance back at the road for every 2.5 seconds of sign reading (based on eye movement research by Bhise and Rockwell, 1973). This would require a 1.5 second legibility distance for 1.0 seconds of sign reading, 3.0 seconds of legibility distance for 2.5 seconds of sign reading, and 5.0 seconds for 4.0 seconds of sign reading. This is assuming that the driver begins to read the sign as soon as it becomes legible. Allowing an additional 1.0-second for sign acquisition after it becomes legible, and to achieve a reasonable level of acuity reserve, an appropriate legibility distance for signs displaying one word would be 2.5 seconds, two to three words would be 4.0 seconds, and four to eight words would be 6.0 seconds. (Translating that to distance at 55 mph would require these signs to be legible at 200, 325, 485 feet, respectively.) The United States Sign Council (USSC, 2003) offers guidelines designed to assist in quantifying the legibility factors discussed above and simplifying the process for computing the size of the average static commercial sign in a motorist oriented environment. Unfortunately, no research or standards has yet to address the speed at which motorists can assimilate the type of dynamic television -style graphics that EMCs are capable of displaying. How large should EMC letters be? In a study of CMS for the FHWA, Garvey and Mace (1996) reported that letter height has the greatest impact on the distance at which a sign can be read. Unlike other critical sign visibility • variables, such as contrast and luminance, legibility distance continues to improve with increases in letter height; there is no practical asymptote. There are, however, real world limitations on sign size, and there is also research that reports optimum letter heights for fastest normal reading • speeds above which performance declines (Raasch and Rubin, 1993). Legibility Index (LI) is a measure of the furthest distance at which a sign can be read as a function of letter size, and in English units is expressed in feet per inch of letter height (ft/in). In the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices the FHWA uses a legibility index of 40 where each inch of letter height is assumed to provide 40 feet of legibility distance (a sign with 12 inch tall letters would be legible 480 feet away). The MUTCD does mention, however, that "Some research indicates that a ratio of one inch of letter height per 33 feet of legibility distance could be beneficial." (USDOT, 2003). Some of those research results were based on the outcomes of several roadway evaluations of CMS. For example, Upchurch, et al. (1992) and Garvey and Mace (1996) found that LIs for CMS on the order of 35 Win would accommodate "average" older and younger observers. Indeed, Garvey and Mace found that even larger letters might be required to accommodate all drivers as Lls dropped to 22 for the bottom 15 percent of younger drivers and 17 for the poorest performing 15 percent of older drivers. In a study of static commercial sign legibility conducted under "real world" conditions, Zineddin, et al. (2005) confirmed these findings and actually found that in certain high complexity sites, the LI dropped • to as low as 7 Win. In a study of CMS visibility, Colomb, et al. (1991) wrote that words on an 80 mph (117 ft/sec) roadway should have a letter height of 16 inches, as the authors contend that this would allow seven words to be read before the driver passed the sign. This is consistent with the review of reading time and LI discussed above (if a LI of 35 is used for the 16 inch letters, then legibility distance would be 560 feet, and at 117 ft/sec this would allow 4.8 seconds to read the sign, a time that falls between the 4.0 seconds to read three words and the 6.0 seconds to read four to eight words). Other research that has specifically evaluated CMS contends that "under perfect conditions, a driver with 20/20 vision traveling during the day at 62 mph on a freeway reading 14-in letters has about nine seconds during which sign text is legible" (Mast and Ballas, 1976 in CTC & Associates, 2003). The MUTCD states that CMS letters should be a minimum of 10.6 inches and increased to 18 inches if speeds are greater than 55 mph. Research conducted on static outdoor advertising content has yielded similar results. Coetzee (2003) reported that three-foot high text should be legible at about 1,600 feet (an LI of about 44). This author wrote that text height should be between 12 inches and three feet, as the • larger number appropriately restricts sign viewing to approximately 1,600 feet and the smaller Gol • • I* number ensures that the sign can be read before the viewing angle is too large for the driver to comfortably read the sign. Using "bit" values defined by the South African Government where: • Words up to 8 letters = 1 bit, • Words > 8 letters = 2 bits, • Numbers to 4 digits = 0.5 bits, • Numbers 5-8 digits = 1 bit, • Symbol/Abbreviation = 0.5 bits, and • Logo/graphics = 2 bits, Coetzee (2003) calculated typical reading times for static outdoor advertisement as a function of amount of information and level of distraction (D) for two roadway complexities (Table 1). This author recommended a maximum of 12 bits of information for signs with about 1500 feet of legibility distance. Table 1. Typical reading times for outdoor advertising signs N (bits) T (D=1.25) T (D=1.5) 3 0.9 sec 1.1 sec 6 2.1 sec 2.6 sec 8 2.9 sec 3.5 sec 12 4.5 sec 5.4 sec People read words and sentences, not letters! Signs use words, sentences, phrases, and images, not merely strings of letters. Word legibility introduces cognitive factors quantitatively and qualitatively different from those posed by letters (Zwahlen, et al. 1995). Static guide sign research shows that familiar word recognition is based more on global features, such as the overall shape or "footprint" of a word (Garvey, et al., 1998) rather than individual letter characteristics. As a result, sign legibility distances are longer than would be predicted by visual acuity alone (Kuhn, et al., 1998). This is known as the word superiority effect (for a review see Zineddin, 2001). Sentence reading takes this a step further as mentioned by Legge, et al. (1997) who stated that reading speed for words in sentences could be faster than for single words because of the "predictability of the words in sentences." Fine, et al. (1997) suggested that this was due in part to the additional information provided by syntactic and 7 semantic sentence content. Because of these cognitive components, sign message recognition . does not require the ability to discriminate all content elements (e.g., every stroke of a letter or even all the letters in a word, or words in a sentence or phrase) for correct message identification to occur (Proffitt, et al., 1998). What about color? Garvey and Mace (1996) studied CMS with red, white, and yellow elements and found no significant difference in legibility. These researchers found that color produced no difference in legibility distance that could not be accounted for by luminance, luminous contrast, or contrast orientation between signs using the following color combinations: white/green, black/white, black/orange, black/yellow, and black/red. This is consistent with the findings of research on computer displays (Pastoor, 1990). Pastoor's research findings indicate that if appropriate luminance contrast, color contrast, and luminance levels are maintained, the choice of specific colors for background and text does not affect legibility distance. What about font? • Garvey, et al. (1997, 1998, 2001) and Garvey, Zineddin, and Pietrucha (2001) have demonstrated that font can have a dramatic affect on standard highway sign legibility and on large format letter legibility. They demonstrated that specific fonts could have superior recognition and legibility indices when compared to other fonts using letters of the same height. Yager, et al. (1998) concluded that font can have an effect on reading speed when the letter heights and luminance contrast are close to threshold; they went on to state, "Until systematic comprehensive studies are done, choices of font characteristics ... will depend on uninformed biases and, perhaps, aesthetic considerations rather than optimization of performance." What about letter, word, and line spacing? Garvey and Mace (1996) tested inter -letter and inter -word spacing in computer simulated matrix (e.g., 5x7) CMS words and found that inter -letter spacing equal to 1/7 capital letter height produced the poorest results. They recommended a minimum spacing of 3/7th letter height. Dudek (1991), in summarizing European CMS standards, wrote that the desirable inter -character • spacing is 2/7th letter height and line spacing is 4/7th letter height. Mace, et al. (1996) found an • inter -line spacing of 75 percent of capital letter height to be best for three -line static standard highway signs. Woodson (1993) reported that inter -letter static sign spacing should be between 25 and 50 percent of capital letter height and inter -word spacing should be from 75 to 100 percent of letter height (in Wourms, et al., 2001). Is lowercase more legible than uppercase? Research by Garvey, et al. (1997, 1998) demonstrated that, for static highway signs words composed of lowercase letters with a lead capital letter (i.e., mixed case) are more visible (by 12 to 15 percent) than words composed of only uppercase letters in terms of recognition of the word. They also found that all uppercase and mixed case words perform equally well for word legibility, where some individual letter reading may be required. The publication, "Passenger Information Services: A Guidebook for Transit Systems" stated that for CMS uppercase letters should be used for destinations and other short.messages, and mixed case should be used for "long legends and instructions." The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (2000) state, "Destination information shall not be written in capital letters only" and that "the use of • both upper and lowercase text helps ensure that words that are not completely clear and legible to people with a degree of vision impairment or learning disability are still, identifiable through shape recognition of the word." (in Wourms, et al., 2001). Forbes, et al. (1950) conducted perhaps the definitive study on the difference in static traffic sign legibility between text depicted in all uppercase letters and that shown in mixed case. Forbes, et al. (1950) found a significant improvement in legibility distance with mixed case words versus all uppercase. Garvey, et al. (1997) replicated this result with new sign materials, a different font, and older observers. As mentioned above, Garvey and his colleagues found a 12 to 15 percent increase in legibility distance with mixed -case text under daytime and nighttime conditions. It must be understood, however, that these results were obtained with a recognition task. That is, the observers knew what words they were looking for. In instances where observers do not know the text they are looking for, improvements with mixed case are not evident (Forbes, et al., 1950; Mace, et al., 1994; and Garvey, et al., 1997). Does contrast orientation (or polarity) have an effect? • Positive contrast signs have light copy on dark backgrounds and negative contrast signs have dark copy on light backgrounds. Garvey and Mace (1996) reported a 29 percent improvement in 9 nighttime CMS legibility distance with positive versus negative contrast messages. Iannuzziello • (2001) also recommended positive contrast for general transit signage. The research on this issue is clear; with the possible exception of tight intercharacter spacing on static highway signs (Case, et al., 1952), positive -contrast provides greater legibility distances than negative -contrast. As far back as 1955, laboratory research by Allen and Straub found that white -on -black static highway signs provided longer legibility distances than black -on white signs. Allen, et al. (1967) replicated these results in the field. Garvey and Mace (1996) extended these results in their CMS research with the addition of orange, yellow, and green signs where positive -contrast signs resulted in improvements in legibility of about 30 percent over negative -contrast signs. Are symbols better than text? In a study of static traffic sign comprehension speed, Ellis and Dewar (1979) found symbolic signs to outperform those with text messages. These researchers also discovered that symbolic signs were less susceptible to glare than text signs. In a 1975 visibility study, Jacobs and his colleagues assessed the legibility distance of almost 50 highway sign symbols and their text • counterparts. These researchers found that in the majority of cases, the legibility distances for the symbols were twice that of the text signs. Kline and his colleagues' (1990 and 1993) replicated this finding for a smaller set of symbols using young, middle-aged, and older observers. Kline's research also described a technique to optimize symbol legibility called recursive blurring (Figure 1). The technique results in symbols designed to "maximize contour size and contour separation." In other words, optimized symbols or logos will have elements that are large enough to be seen from a distance and spaces between the elements wide enough to reduce blurring between elements. 0] 10 • Original 18 16 14 12 r L 0 t • • • ( • • 14 8 6 4 ' lot 4;0 km. Figure 1. Example of recursive blurring to evaluate symbol visibility (Shieber, 1998). The literature clearly indicates that, from a visibility standpoint, symbols are superior to text. Symbols, however, require a different kind of comprehension than words. Symbol meaning is either understood intuitively or learned. Although traffic sign experts and traffic engineers agree that understandability is the most important factor in symbol design (Dewar, • 1988), other research has shown that what is intuitive to designers is not always intuitive to drivers, and that teaching observers the meaning of more abstract symbols is frequently unsuccessful. Do abbreviations work? Proffitt, et al. (1998) wrote that abbreviations take about four times as long to read as words spelled out completely. If abbreviations are absolutely necessary due to sign size constraints, they recommend two techniques: • Truncation — where the end of the word is removed, • Contraction — where, except for the first letter and first vowel, the vowels and the letters h, w, and y are removed. Hutchingson and Dudek (1983) discussed three abbreviation strategies for use on CMS: • Key Consonants — similar to Proffitt's contraction method, • • First Syllable — similar to Proffitt's truncation method, 11 • First Letter — only to be used in special cases such as N, S, E, and W for the cardinal • directions. Hutchingson and Dudek recommended using the Key Consonant technique on words with five to seven letters (for example, Frwy for Freeway) and the First Syllable method for words with nine or more letters (for example, Cond for Condition); however, this technique should not be used if the first syllable is in itself a new word. Proffitt, et al. (1998) reported that readers preferred contraction to truncation. Both groups of researchers state that abbreviations are to be used only as a last resort if limitations in sign size demand it, as abbreviations increase the possibility of incorrect sign interpretation. Further complicating the issue, Durkop and Dudek (2001) found that the comprehension of abbreviations can be influenced by driver age, geographic location, and education level. Alternate suggestions to deal with the limitations inherent in using abbreviations include selecting a shorter synonym for the abbreviated word, reducing letter size, reducing message length, and increasing sign size. What is the impact of sign brightness? In the MUTCD, the FHWA states, "Portable Changeable Message signs shall automatically • adjust their brightness under varying light conditions, to maintain legibility" (USDOT, 2003). Some manufacturers recommend a 50 percent voltage reduction from daytime to nighttime conditions, while others suggest that at night signs should be dimmed to 20 percent of daytime brightness. In a study of CMS legibility for the FHWA, Garvey and Mace (1996) made more specific photometric recommendations based on human factors research with older and younger drivers. These researchers recommended a nighttime luminance of 30 candelas per square meter (Cd/rn), and 1000 cd/m2 for bright daytime viewing. They found, however, that as subjects' visual acuity worsened, more light was needed to achieve equivalent performance. Dudek's (1991) nighttime luminance recommendation was from 30 to 230 cd/m2. The European highway community has been attempting to derive standard optical test methods for CMS for decades, but they have been slowed down by, among other factors, rapidly changing technology (Grahame Cheek, European Standards body (CEN), March 8, 2002: personal communication). Currently, there are no photometric standards to specify what aspect of the sign should be measured (for a discussion on the issues, see Garvey and Mace, 1996; or Lewis, 2000). • 12 How about contrast? Combining the results of six research efforts on static traffic sign legibility, Sivak and Olson (1985) derived a recommended contrast ratio of 12:1 for positive contrast signs (where sign copy is 12 times brighter than sign background). Staplin, et al. (1997) expanded this to between 4:1 and 50:1. Colomb and Hubert (1991) found improvements in daytime legibility of CMS to level off between 8 and 20 percent contrast (defined as the difference between the luminance of the letters and the background, divided by the luminance of the background). Legge, et al. (1997) found a reduction in reading speeds at contrast levels below 10 percent. Stainforth and Kniveton (1996) reported that a generally accepted luminance contrast ratio for CMS is 10:1. Dudek (1991) stated that for CMS, a contrast ratio between 8:1 and 12:1 should be used for light emitting technologies (e.g., LEDs) and 40 percent daytime and 50 percent nighttime contrast for light reflecting technologies. The "Passenger Information Services: A Guidebook for Transit Systems" recommends 70 percent contrast for all signs (Wourms, et al., 2001). How should long sign messages be displayed? (Paging and Streaming) • EMCs are capable of presenting more information than will fit on a single static screen or display. For CMS, the MUTCD states "Techniques of message display such as fading, exploding, dissolving, or moving messages shall not be used" (USDOT, 2003), but commercial EMCs are not subject to these regulations. While there is no research on fully dynamic video display on signs, there is information in the literature on dynamically displayed text that might apply to some EMC applications. If more than a single screen of information is required, the messages must be displayed in some dynamic format, either by paging or by some form of scrolling or streaming. Paging means that the information is static, but a number of pages of information are shown sequentially to convey the entire message. Scrolling typically denotes that the text is moving down the sign from the top to the bottom. Streaming refers to text that moves across the sign from the right to the left. Streaming is the method used most frequently with single line message boards. Highway CMS nearly exclusively use paging because, "The text of the messages shall not scroll or travel horizontally or vertically across the face of the sign" (USDOT, 2003). • In evaluating LED "next -stop" CMS on buses, Bentzen and Easton (1996) found that, "static messages were clearly superior to streaming messages." However, these researchers reported that when the message was too large to fit on a single static page, streaming messages 13 outperformed paging messages. On the other hand, Kang and Muter (1989) reported earlier • research (Sekey and Tietz, 1982) that found reading speed to be slower for constant scrolling (also known as "Times Square" presentation) than either irregular scrolling ("saccadic") or page mode. However, their own research supports that of Bentzen and Easton (1996), and Kang and Muter concluded that constant scrolling works at least as well as static techniques and is preferred by readers. A study sponsored by the Transportation Management Center Pooled -Fund Study (http://tmcpfs.ops.thwa.dot.gov/cfl)rojects/new search.cfm?new=0) titled Impacts of Dynamically Displaying Messages on Changeable Message Signs is underway to address some of these issues. The objective of the research is to "Conduct human factors studies to determine the effects of dynamically displaying messages on CMSs including at a minimum: a) flashing an entire one -frame message; b) flashing one line/word of a one -frame message; and c) alternating text on one line of a two -or -more -line CMS while keeping the other line(s) of text constant on the second frame of the message." The final report is scheduled for release in July of 2005. How fast should sign information move? How long a static message should be displayed and how fast a dynamic message should stream • across the sign is mainly a function of the target audience's reading rate. As mentioned earlier, Proffitt, et al. (1998) found the average adult reading rate to be about 250 words per minute. Kang and Muter (1989) put the rate at 280 wpm for college students. There are numerous and varied recommendations regarding both EMC message duration and speed. It has been recommended that, "a line of text should be displayed for at least ten seconds, preferably a little longer." (ECMT, 1999), and there is Dudek's 1991 recommended of a minimum exposure time for CMS of "one second per short word... or two seconds per unit of information" for use with unfamiliar observers as discussed earlier. Harris and Whitney (1993) wrote that if scrolling is used, information should be left on the screen for at least twice the normal reading time. Barham, et al. (1994) found a fixed time of about 10 seconds was needed to avoid confusion when a scrolled message is used. In light of this finding, they recommended that the duration of message displays should be from 10 to 20 seconds (in Wourms, et al., 2001). Joffee (1995) recommended a display time of 1.6 seconds when a single line CMS must display multiple pages of information. Finally, Bentzen and Easton (1996) evaluated the effect of streaming rates, • defined as the length of time any given pixel is in view from when it appears on the right of the 14 • sign to the time it disappears on the left side. These researchers found 2.75 and 2.56 second streaming rates to be optimal for single word CMS messages. They reported that a streaming lie 10 rate of 3.5 seconds was so slow as to appear to flicker and a streaming rate of 1.5 seconds was too fast for subjects to consistently read the message. WHAT ARE THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF EMCs? For any sign to be useful it must be conspicuous; that is, it must have a high probability of being detected by its target audience. All highway signs, including EMCs, are therefore designed to attract driver attention. Although there is little scientific evidence to support claims that EMCs and outdoor advertising signs in general have a negative impact on road safety, it is often stated that these signs compete with basic driving demands for driver attention, thereby distracting drivers from the safe operation of their vehicles. Distinctions, however, must be drawn between the terms, "attraction," "distraction," and "dangerous distraction." The term distraction can be defined as attracting attention away from some primary task. Simply put, the primary driving task is to safely maneuver the vehicle from point a to point b. Anything that distracts a vehicle operator to a degree that results in hazardous driving behavior is a dangerous distraction (e.g., cellular phones). When used to describe commercial signs, the term distraction is seen as synonymous with the creation of a traffic hazard. The fact that drivers pay attention to commercial signs is not in dispute, the issue is whether this attention has a negative impact on driving performance. Eye Movement Research Four driver eye movement studies were recently conducted to evaluate driver behavior in the presence of commercial signs; two of these included off -premise EMCs. Young (2004) reported the results of a 1999 eye movement study where 50 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 70 were driven over a 30-mile course with 28 static billboards. The subjects were seated in the vehicle's passenger seat. Young stated that 74 percent of the billboards were seen and 48 percent were read. Lee, et al. (2003) evaluated the eye movements and driving behavior of 36 younger and older drivers as they drove a 35-mile loop in Charlotte, NC, USA. The test route included sections with billboards (static only), others with just traffic signs, and others with neither. Thirty billboard passes were evaluated. There was no change in speed variability or lateral 15 position within the lane (measures of driver inattentiveness) associated with outdoor advertising. • The researchers concluded, "The presence of billboards does not cause a measurable change in driver behavior, in terms of visual behavior, speed maintenance, or lane keeping." Beijer (2004) conducted a study to evaluate the "possible distracting effect on driver [eye] scanning behavior of roadside advertisements." The study employed 25 subjects between 25 and 50 years of age who drove four miles of a Toronto, Canada expressway and were exposed to 37 commercial signs. A head mounted infrared eye tracking device was used (EL -MAR Vision 2000). Five on- and off -premise EMCs displaying moving text and images were included in the study. The EMCs and other active signs (roller bar and scrolling text) elicited significantly more and longer glances than did the static billboards. The EMCs had the greatest number of "long glance durations" (greater than 0.75 seconds) and five times as many long glances as static billboards. As previous studies using only static billboards did not find significant distraction (e.g., Lee, et al., 2003), Beijer concluded that "active advertising signs may result in greater distraction than past studies of the effect of commercial signing might indicate." However, Beijer admitted that sign placement was not controlled in the study and that the more expensive EMCs and other • active signs were generally located closer to the center of the driver's visual field increasing the likelihood of detection and longer glance duration as these researchers reported that "An average of 79.5 percent of glances were within ten degrees of center and 97.6 percent were within 25 degrees." Smiley, et al. (2004) evaluated the effect of outdoor advertising on eye movements using the same apparatus as Beijer. This study was specifically aimed at addressing the effects of on - and off -premise EMCs. Sixteen subjects, age 25 to 50, drove through four downtown intersections (three with EMCs) and a section of urban expressway in Toronto, Canada along which a single EMC was mounted. In summarizing the eye movement behavior, the authors stated, "Glances at advertising, static billboards or video signs [EMCs], constituted only 1.5 percent of total glances. Mean glance durations were short — generally between 115 and 3/5 of a second." Overall, 45 percent of the subjects looked at the four EMCs evaluated in this research. At the intersections, 48 percent of subjects looked at the EMCs, while on the expressway this fell to 36 percent. Twenty-five percent of EMC glances were longer than 0.75 seconds in duration, and 73 percent were within 20 degrees of the subjects' line of sight. The researchers wrote, "In • some cases glances at [EMCs] were made unsafely, that is, at short headways, for long durations 16 • and at large angles off the line of sight." Overall however, these researchers concluded that, "No evidence was found that glances at video signs [EMCs] reduced the proportion of glances at traffic signs or signals" and there was no evidence that the EMCs reduced subject detection of 14D cyclists or pedestrians. Driver attention in the presence of static commercial signs Three studies conducted in the 1970s evaluated the possible effect of commercial signs on driver attention. As the studies were conducted before EMC signs were available, the research focused on static signs. In their research on distraction by irrelevant information, Johnston and Cole (1976) presented observers with 240 "likely to distract" commercial signs. These researchers concluded, "These experiments have demonstrated that the human operator has the capacity to shed irrelevant information." They went further to state that "the general effect of distraction . does not represent a physiological phenomenon against which the operator has no defense." Two field studies (Tindall, 1977; and Sanderson, 1974; in Andreassen, 1985) support the conclusions from Johnston and Cole's laboratory research. Tindall found that drivers are more likely to ignore signs that are not relevant to the driving task and more likely to attend to signs that have a direct effect on driving performance. Sanderson reported that when a commercial sign was placed among traffic signs, drivers have significantly greater recall of the traffic signs than of the commercial signs. Although they did not evaluate EMCs specifically, in a recent study of driver distraction conducted for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (Stutts, et al., 2003), researchers evaluated national (U.S.) and state (North Carolina) crash data and concluded that while "driver inattention is a major contributor to highway crashes ... the search appears to suggest that some items — such as CB radios, billboards, and temperature controls — are not significant distractions." Specifically, out of two years of national narrative data from 1997 and 1998, only eight of 332 and nine of 412 crashes respectively involving driver distraction were attributed to "other distractions" that included "looking outside vehicle (in rear view mirror, at traffic, at road signs, in store window, for gas station, for parking space, for business, etc)." North Carolina narrative data were evaluated for 1998, and no crashes were associated with drivers being distracted by billboards. However the study (Stutts, et al., 2003) did mention that "those ages 65 and older • were more likely to have been distracted by objects and events outside the vehicle (other vehicles, signs, animals, etc.) and by other (unspecified) distractions." 17 In an evaluation of literature on driver distraction by items external to the vehicle, Wallace (2003a) looked at the possible impact of static billboards. He concluded, "It is still not proven whether billboards attract attention from driving or not. Certainly there is a large amount of scientific evidence suggesting they might under certain circumstances, and a few suggestive correlation and laboratory studies suggesting they do. However all the studies are flawed: either because they are correlation studies, because they are too small scale to draw conclusions from, or because of issues of ecological validity." Wallace went on to state, "Nevertheless the case for arguing that visual `clutter' at junctions (associated with billboards and signs) can lead to unsafe driving is very strong. However more research is needed on specific cases to demonstrate the extent of the effect." Driver attention in the presence of EMCs The goal of a recent publication by the FHWA (FHWA, 2001) was to "review the literature on the safety implications of electronic billboards [EMCs], and to identify knowledge gaps in the findings." Major findings of this research include: • A 1994 Wisconsin DOT Report found increases in rear end and sideswipe crash rates (from 21 to 36 percent depending on the direction of traffic) with the introduction of a variable message advertising sign that changed images at a rate of 12 per minute. Six years of crash data were evaluated, three before the 1984 sign installation and three after. • Nevada, Utah, Texas, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts "reported no evidence of increased traffic safety problems after the installation of electronic information displays in their city centers and along their highways." • "In most instances, researchers were not able to verify that an [EMC] was a major factor in causing a crash." • "At this point, it appears that there is no effective technique or method appropriate for evaluating the safety effects of [EMCs] on driver attention or distraction." Crashes in the presence of static commercial signs Several older studies attempted to evaluate the relationship between traffic accidents and static commercial signs. All of these studies have the difficult task of attempting to associate accident 18 • 401 *I a causation with a single factor. Johnston and Cole (1976) called accidents "multi -factorial" and stated, "Just as it is difficult to conclude that roadside advertising contributes significantly to an increase in accident rates, it is equally difficult to assert with confidence that it makes no contribution whatsoever." In one of the earliest research efforts exploring the relationship between collisions and static commercial signs, Rykken (1951) reported that a preliminary study of approximately 170 miles of Minnesota roadway found no relationship between the presence of commercial signs and accident occurrence. This researcher went further and implied that long roadway sections with no advertising might actually result in driver fatigue and excessive speed. Rykken qualified his results, however, by stating that an accident analysis is only as good as the accident reports, and that these reports "...may not be sufficiently accurate nor adequate to completely fix the cause of many accidents." Rusch (1951) published an accident analysis study aimed at determining the safety impact of static roadside advertisements. The author concluded that "inattention" and "misdirected attention" were the main causes of an increased number of accidents in high - advertising and roadside business areas and attributed this inattention to advertising signs. However, in a 1985 synthesis of the literature on traffic accidents and advertising signs, Andreassen questioned the results of Rusch's correlational study, stating that the study "does not prove anything about the effect of advertising signs on accident occurrence." Andreassen wrote that any number of other factors might have contributed to the accident increase. In addition to the Rusch report, Andreassen (1985) evaluated the results of five other studies that examined the relationship between advertising signs and accidents. He reported that two of the studies found a positive correlation and three found no relationship. He stated that the studies reporting positive results were "discredited by subsequent analysis." Andreassen's final conclusion was that "There is no current evidence to say that advertising signs, in general, are causing traffic accidents." In a recent review of the topic Coetzee (2003) similarly concluded that although there is some reason to believe that billboards might result in higher accident rates, "limited empirical proof of advertisements resulting in more accidents exist." Tantala and Tantala (2005) recently conducted a correlational analysis that evaluated the relationship between crashes occurring on a section of the New Jersey Turnpike and placement • of advertising signs. Data on 22,971 crashes from 1998 to 2001 were used in the evaluation. There were 123 static on -premise and off -premise advertising signs on the test section of the 19 turnpike used in this research. The analyses revealed "extremely weak" (from 0.1 to 0.2) • correlations between sign density and crashes, and a near zero to slightly negative correlation between crashes and sign proximity (that is, crashes were not more likely to occur near signs). Given the extremely low correlations, the researchers concluded that neither the proximity nor the density of commercial signs were statistically associated with increases in the number of roadway crashes. Crashes in the presence of EMCs As part of the research project discussed above, Tantala and Tantala (2005) conducted a second accident analysis that evaluated the "before -after" effect installing a single EMC. The on - premise EMC was mounted at an intersection in Bucks County, PA on U.S. Business Route 1. A portion of the sign included "varied aspects of simulated movement including scrolling, wipe -on, wipe -off, blending, and rapid copy variations involving different messages in a constantly changing mode of operation." Crash data were collected for one year before and one year after the January 2002 sign installation. A total of 68 accidents took place in 2001 and 60 accidents occurred in 2002. As the traffic volume increased by 5.3 percent during this time period, this • represents a decrease in crash rate of 16 percent. The researchers concluded that in the specific instance evaluated in their study, the EMC did not affect traffic crash rate: "The results of this study conclude that advertising signs have no statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. These analyses also suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists." However, they also suggest that more sign locations and more crash data over a greater period of time should be evaluated in future research. The data from Smiley, et al.'s 2004 research discussed previously were reanalyzed to look specifically at the potential roadway safety effects of EMCs (Smiley, et al., 2005). In addition to the driver eye movement behavior reported in Smiley, et al. 2004, the 2005 report looked at crashes before and after EMC sign installation, contained an evaluation of driver behavior in the presence and absence of EMCs, and included a survey of road user perception of the potential safety impact of these signs. Inappropriate braking, lateral lane position, and "the time it took for the 5th vehicle in a queue to cross the stop line after the commencement of green" (a measure of driver attention • while waiting at a red signal) were recorded at three intersections where EMCs were located. The EMCs were visible from two of the four approaches to each intersection. At one 20 • intersection there was an increase in inappropriate braking on the EMC approaches compared to the non-EMC approaches, but no change in lateral position or time to cross the stop line. No effect of EMCs was found on any of the three variables tested at the other two intersections. Vehicle speed and spacing between vehicles were recorded before and after sign installation on a section of expressway from which an EMC was visible. The results of this analysis were inconclusive. Also, before and after sign installation crash data were evaluated at each of the three intersection sites and the expressway location. Three to four years of before crash data and one to two years of after data were included in the analyses., Given the small number of collisions at the intersection sites, no significant change in crashes was found to be associated with the installation of the EMCs. The expressway evaluation also resulted in non- significant changes in crashes associated with the installation of an EMC. Despite these findings, a public survey of 152 roadway users conducted by Smiley, et al. (2005) had the following results: • 65 percent said EMCs have a negative effect on driver attention, • • 59 percent said, as a driver, their attention is drawn to EMCs in downtown locations, and 49 percent of that group indicated a negative effect on driving safety, • 59 percent said, as a driver, their attention is drawn to these signs on expressways, and 44 percent of that group indicated a negative effect on driving safety, • 86 percent of subjects said there should be restrictions on EMCs in the interest of traffic safety, and 73 percent of that group said that video signs should not be placed at intersections and 62 percent of the group favoring restrictions said that video signs should not be placed on highways, • 6 percent reported experiencing near collisions as a result of an EMC, • 1.3 percent had experienced rear -end collisions that they associated with video advertising signs, and • On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all distracting, 7 = very distracting to drivers) "video advertising signs were rated at 3.7, higher than billboards (2.1), but close to the same as road construction (4.0), and lower than in -car cell phone use (5.6) in terms of distraction." In the conclusion of their report, Smiley and her colleagues (2005) stated, based on the 4 studies reported on in this paper, and the amalgamation with the results of an earlier study of eye 21 movements for a video sign on the Gardiner Expressway it cannot be concluded at this time that • video advertising signs are either safe or unsafe." They suggested that the potential impact on traffic safety is highly sign- and location -dependant and that some signs mounted in some locations may very well negatively impact traffic safety, while others will not. They recommended that more research be conducted with larger crash data sets to evaluate the potential impact on safety, and more eye movement studies should be conducted to "determine design and placement factors which keep driver distraction to a minimum." EMC ZONING REGULATIONS The BPS Outdoor Advertising website reports that 24 percent of U.S. states prohibit moving or animated signs and that 29 percent have "timing limits" on EMCs (BPS Outdoor, 2004). Through interviews with state DOTs, review of DOT websites, and a meeting with members of the National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies' (NAHBA), information from 44 states were evaluated (FHWA, 2001). The conclusion was that "common billboard guidelines governing [EMCs]... do not exist." A consistent feature among the guidelines, however, is the prohibition of signs that have flashing, intermittent, or moving lights. • Wisconsin is very specific in delineating the acceptable use of EMCs and its requirements are representative of other states that have strict EMC codes (CTC & Associates, 2003): • No message may be displayed for less than one-half second; • No message may be repeated at intervals of less than two seconds; • No segmented message may last longer than 10 seconds; • No traveling message may travel at a rate slower than 16 light columns per second or faster than 32 columns per second; and • No variable message sign lamp may be illuminated to a degree of brightness that is greater than necessary for adequate visibility. WHAT ARE THE PRESSING EMC RESEARCH NEEDS? Given that EMCs are used for so many purposes, and the application of EMCs is so varied, there is appears to be a pressing need to develop a set of guidelines that would provide EMC designers, 22 • manufacturers, and users with some needed direction in how to use these signs most effectively. Many of the design elements for EMCs are listed in Table 2. While this list is not exhaustive, it does represent most of the issues that must be considered before designing, fabricating, and placing an EMC. • Table 2. EMC Design Elements. • Target Audience o Drivers o Passengers o Non -occupants • Content o Message ■ Text ■ Symbols ■ Moving Image o Use of Color • Placement o Location o Number of Signs o Orientation o Mounting Height o Roadway Offset • Conspicuity • Legibility o Luminance/Contrast o Letter Height o Font o Kerning o Negative Space o Words per Line o Lines per Page o Pages per Message o Message Motion (e.g., scrolling, streaming, dissolves) o Message Duration (minima and maxima) o Negative Duration (minima and maxima) • Size o Maximum Dimensions o Minimum Dimensions • Understanding/Comprehension • Retention • Regulations o Federal o State o Local • Safety o Distraction o Accident Analysis o Public Acceptance o Regulator Acceptance 23 EMC designers must first consider what the sign is to be used for. Once the purpose of is the sign has been established, the target audience can be identified. As the target audience becomes known, the message content should begin to evolve. Will the sign be used to direct drivers to a driveway entrance? Is the sign promoting a special event taking place at a later date that is of interest to the general public? Or is it merely a general advertisement of a product or service? After identifying a target audience and formulating the message content, placement issues such as location, the number of signs, the orientation of the signs, the mounting height, and lateral offset can be addressed. After the placement has been established, conspicuity and visibility issues should come into play. Are the sign viewers fixed or moving relative to the sign? How fast are they moving? Answers to these questions will begin to detail elements such as contrast values, letter heights, lines of text, numbers of panels, and sign size. To assess the effectiveness of the sign, an evaluation of whether the message is legible and understood and retained by the target audience should be conducted. All through the design process the EMC should be evaluated in terms of compliance with all applicable regulations. Lastly, there should be some assurance that the EMC will not compromise the safety of the general public. • One should also keep in mind that EMCs represent a very special case of sign viewing in that the people seeing the sign can be moving and the images on the sign can be moving. This case is somewhat unprecedented in visual and cognitive research. Therefore, by examining the nature of the design elements, along with what is known (and not known) about user performance, while keeping in mind the special nature of the tasks associated with viewing EMCs, the following general recommendations regarding research can be made. Viewing a dynamic sign from a moving vehicle It would seem that the single most pressing need for EMC designers is to have more information about how drivers view a dynamic sign from a moving vehicle. As mentioned above, there is no directly relevant research in this area related to commercial signs. Therefore, it would be valuable to have more information about nearly every design element related to sign visibility in the context of a moving viewer looking at a sign with a dynamic image. (For purposes of discussion, the term "changing" will be used to denote an image that is static on a single panel, but the panel changes on or off as part of a multiple panel message, the term "moving" denotes • that the image is moving on the individual panel.) 24 • Letter Height — What is the appropriate letter size (i.e., height) for a driver to view a changing message? This information could be derived using analytical methods that simulate a vehicle approaching an EMC sign at a certain speed given the number of panels in the message. What is the appropriate letter size for a driver to view a moving message? Font — What effect would the selection of a specific font have on the selection of letter height? In a static viewing condition, this is known somewhat. In a dynamic viewing condition, this is unknown. Kerning — There are guidelines for spacing the letters, within a specified font, used to form the words in a static message; however, whether these kerning values are still valid under dynamic conditions is not known. Negative Space — Although the MUTCD does address the issue in the form of a requirement for copy placement and spacing on highway guide signs, information on this topic for dynamic sign messages is non-existent. Words per Line — There is limited information on the maximum numbers of words that can be read and understood for a single line of text on a static sign. As with many of the other design elements, there is no information about this for dynamic signs. Lines per Page — While three lines of text seem to be optimal on static signs, there is no corresponding information regarding this design element for dynamic signs. For a moving message, issues such as order and speed of presentation and presentation duration of each line would have to be considered. Pages per Message — The number of pages are limited by the legibility thresholds and the duration of the presentation. The time the driver has to read a message is dependent on how far from the sign reading can begin, and how long the sign is visible given how fast the vehicle, in which the driver is traveling, is moving. This is similar to the issues with letter height discussed above in that an analytical approach could be used to provide design guidance, but this would only apply to changing and not moving messages. Message Motion — How the message "comes on to" and "leaves" the EMC will influence a driver's ability to read and understand the message. Scrolling, streaming, and screen dissolves will increase the time needed by the driver to perform this task; however, very little is known about how great this increase in time actually is. • Message Duration/Negative Duration — The length of time that the message is presented, whether it be as part of a changing message or a moving message is very important 25 relative to the driver reading and understanding a particular message. Further, the amount of • negative duration (i.e., blank screen time) is also important for successful completion of this task. There is very little known about these issues. Combination of Visual Design Elements — Each of the issues discussed above is further complicated when considered in conjunction with other design elements. For example, letter height is influenced by font selection. Message duration and negative duration will depend on font and/or letter height. Lines per page and pages per message could be affected by message motion and duration. Regulations and Safety EMC designers, manufacturers, and operators should be aware of relevant regulations and public sector official's and private citizen's safety concerns. As cited earlier in the report, Wisconsin has very specific requirements regarding the design of EMCs (CTC & Associates, 2003). It is likely that there are other relevant national, state, and local regulations governing EMC design and use. The EMC community would benefit from knowing what types of controls have already been established in this area. Further, a delineation of specific quantitative data regarding • regulations (maximums and minimums) for certain design elements would be useful to EMC designers. This report has also demonstrated, in discussions in prior sections, that while collision data are important, safety goes beyond accident studies. Perceptions by government regulators and private citizens can influence the regulatory climate discussed above. The FHWA memorandum stating that, "[CMS] can convey only a limited amount of information and may not be the safest or most effective method in many cases" or the study by Smiley and her colleagues (2005) finding that 86 percent of a group of 152 road users said that there should be restrictions on EMCs in the interest of traffic safety, and 73 percent of that group said that video signs should not be placed at intersections and 62 percent of the group who favored restrictions said that video signs should not be placed on highways, demonstrates that safety in not just a matter of numbers but also one of individual perceptions. As with the visual design elements, it would be useful to have more information in some of these areas too. Regulations Given limited in the literature • — that the number of regulations uncovered review show some very specific detail related to the operation of EMCs (e.g., minimum message gel • display times, maximum display times for multiple panel messages), there is a need for further research into issues such as: What level of government should/does control EMCs? When specific values are used what are they based on? And if regulations are necessary, what would be a good model set of regulations (i.e., design guidelines)? Qualitative Safety — The perceived safety of anything is usually a matter of perceived risk and perceived consequences. This paradigm works well unless there is a serious mismatch between the perceived risks and consequences and the actual risks and consequences. Before embarking on a research program dealing with quantitative safety measures, it is paramount to have some understanding of what the perceptions of government regulators and the general public are regarding of EMCs. The limited data reported on in this paper shows a fairly negative perception regarding the safety of EMCs. Is this perception widely held? By what sectors of the population? Answers to these types of questions should provide a blueprint regarding how to proceed with any quantitative safety studies. Quantitative Safety — Regarding EMCs, safety translates into two major areas, driver distraction and collisions. For EMCs to be proven as safe or unsafe, there need to be objective studies that demonstrate that after EMCs are installed, there is no increase in the number accidents that are directly attributable to the presence of the EMC. This type of study would be very difficult to conduct as most collisions are not based on any one factor. However, studies that show that EMCs create no more driver distraction than other types of on or off road information sources or distracters would act as a surrogate measure of roadway safety. Recommended Research The following is a list of potential research projects that could be used to begin to address the pressing research needs detailed above. Title: Perception of EMC Safety Method: This would include a detailed survey and critical evaluation of international, national, state, and local EMC regulations and the rationale for their development. Extensive surveys of government regulators' and the public's perception of EMC safety would also be conducted. Model regulations could be drafted. 27 Title: EMC Comprehension • Method: Understanding of messages displayed on EMCs would be evaluated in a laboratory setting using computer generated EMC messages and measuring performance by evaluating message comprehension and retention including the time it takes to absorb the message. Messages displayed in static and dynamic formats would be evaluated. Title: EMC Legibility — Laboratory Study Method: The legibility of EMCs would be evaluated in a laboratory setting using computer generated EMC messages and measuring performance by recording eye movements and determining the minimum content size (or maximum distance). The eye movement recordings will also provide information about how people obtain information from EMCs (e.g., what do they look at first, how long do they dwell on images, etc). Messages would be displayed in static and dynamic formats of varying complexity. Title: EMC Cons icui and Legibility — Field Stud • P tY g tY Y Method: The conspicuity and legibility of EMCs from a dynamic viewer perspective would be evaluated in a field setting using a variety of EMCs (dynamic and static). Performance would be measured using an eye movement device. The distances and viewing angles at which the signs are first detected and when they are read will be recorded. The effects of sign type, message characteristics, environmental, and viewer variables will be evaluated. Title: EMC Safety Method: The safety of EMCs would be evaluated by selecting a large number of locations where EMC have been placed and determining the before -after crash rate and by comparing the crash rates to similar locations that do not have EMCs installed. • Title: Model EMC Guidelines Method: Model EMC guidelines would be developed that take the design and use of EMCs through a process that includes consideration of what the sign's purpose is, the target audience, message content, placement, and conspicuity and visibility. REFERENCES Allen, T.M., Dyer, F.N., Smith, G.M., and Janson, M.H. (1967). Luminance requirements for illuminated signs. Highway Research Record, 179, 16-37. Andreassen, D.C. (1985). Technical Note No. 1: Traffic accidents and advertising signs. Australian Road Research, 15(2), 103-105. Bentzen, B.L., and Easton, R.D. (1996). Specifications for transit vehicle next stop messages. Final Report to Sunrise Systems, Inc., Pembroke, MA. Beijer, D. (2004). Observed driver glance behavior at roadside advertising. Presented at Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 14 pgs. Bowers, A.R. and Reid, V.M. (1997). Eye movement and reading with simulated visual • impairment. Ophthalmology and Physiological Optics, 17(5), p492-402. BPS Outdoor. (2004). ham://www.bpsoutdoor.com/ Brill, L.M. (2002). LED Billboards: Outdoor advertising in the video age. SignIndustry.com. Available at: http://www.signindustry.com/led/articles/2002-07-30-LBledBillboards php3 Case, H.W., Michael, J.L., Mount, G.E., and Brenner, R. (1952). Analysis of certain variables related to sign legibility. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 60, 44-58. Coetzee, J.L. (2003). The evaluation of content on outdoor advertisements. South African National Roads Agency Final Report, 13 pgs. Available at: http://www.itse.co.za/ Colomb, M. and Hubert, R. (1991). Legibility and contrast requirements of variable -message signs. Transportation Research Record, No.1318, pgs. 137-141. Colomb, M., Hubert, R., Carta, V., and Bry, M. (1991). Variable -message signs: legibility and recognition of symbols. Proceedings of the Conference, Strategic Highway Research Program and Traffic Safety on Two Continents, Gothenburg, Sweden, pgs. 46-62. CTC & Associates, LLC (2003). Electronic billboards and highway safety. Bureau of Highway Operations, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 8 pgs. Available at: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/tsrs/tsrelectronicbillboards pdf Dewar, R.E. (1988). Criteria for the design and evaluation of traffic sign symbols. Transportation • Research Record, 1160, 1-6. 29 Dudek, C.L. (1991). Guidelines on the use of changeable message signs. Final Report - • DTFH61-89-R-00053. U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 269 pgs. Dudek, C.L. and Ullman, G.L. (2002). Flashing messages, flashing lines, and alternating one line on changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No. 1803, pgs. 94-101. Durkop, B.R. and Dudek, C.L. (2001). Texas driver understanding of abbreviations for changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No.1748, pgs 87-95. EDMA (2004). Electronic Display Manufacturer's Association Report. Ells, J.G., and Dewar, R.E. (1979). Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic sign messages. Human Factors, 21, 161-168. FHWA. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction. Federal Highway Administration Final Report Report No. FHWA- RD-01-071. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/elecbbrd/ index.htm#contents. FHWA. (2003). Portable changeable message sign handbook: PCMS. FHWA-RD-03-066. McLean, VA 22101. 10 pgs. Fine, E.M., Peli, E., and Reeves, A. (1995). Simulated cataract does not reduce the benefit of RSVP. Vision Research, 37(18), p2639-2647. Forbes, T.W., Moskowitz, K., and Morgan, G. (1950). A comparison of lower case and capital • letters for highway signs. Proceedings, Highway Research Board, 30, 355-373. Garvey, P.M. and Mace, D.J. (1996). Changeable message sign visibility. Federal Highway Administration Report No: FHWA-RD-94-077, Final Report, 137 pgs. Garvey, P.M., Pietrucha, M.T., & Meeker, D. (1997).Effects of font and capitalization on legibility of guide signs. Transportation Research Record, No. 1605, 73-79. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Garvey, P.M., Pietrucha, M.T., & Meeker, D. (1998). Development of a new guide sign alphabet. Ergonomics in Design. Vol 6 (3), pgs. 7-11. Huchingson, R.D. and Dudek, C.L. (1983). How to abbreviate on highway signs. Transportation Research Record, No. 904, pgs. 1-4. Iannuzziello, A.S. (2001) Communicating with persons with disabilities in a multimodal transit environment: A synthesis of transit practice. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 37. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. Jacobs, R.J., Johnston, A.W., and Cole, B.L. (1975). The visibility of alphabetic and symbolic traffic signs. Australian Road Research, 5(7), 68-86. Joffee, E. (1995). Transit vehicle signage for persons who are blind or visually impaired. Journal • of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 89(5), Research Notes, p461-469. 30 • Johnston, A.W., and Cole, B.L. (1976). Investigations of distraction by irrelevant information. Australian Road Research, 6(3), 3-23, Kang, T.J. and Muter P. (1989). Reading dynamically displayed text. Behavior & Information Technology, 8(1), pgs. 33-42. Kline, D.W., and Fuchs, P. (1993). The visibility of symbolic highway signs can be increased among drivers of all ages. Human Factors, 35(1), 25-34. Kline, T.J.B., Ghali, L.M., Kline, D.W., and Brown, S. (1990). Visibility distance of highway signs among young, middle-aged, and older observers: icons are better than text. Human Factors, 32(5), 609-619. Kuhn, B.T., Garvey, P.M., and Pietrucha, M.T. (April 1998). The Impact of Color on Typical On -premise Sign Font Visibility.Presented at TRB's 14th Biennial Symposium on Visibility, Washington, D.C. Legge, G.E., Alin, S.J., Klitz, T.S., and Luebker, A. (1997). Psychophysics in reading - XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 37, p1999-2010. Lovie-Kitchin, J.E., Bowers, A.R., and Woods, R.L. (2000).Oral and silent reading performance with macular degeneration. Ophthalmology and Physiological Optics, 20(5), pgs. 360-370. Lee, S.E., Olsen, E.C.B., and DeHart, M.C. (2003). Driving performance in the presence and • absence of billboards. Executive Summary. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, DC. 5 pgs. Lewis, D.J. (2000). Photometric requirements for arrow panels and portable changeable message signs. AASHTO Conference Proceedings Juneau, Alaska, pgs. 215-221 Mace, D.J., Garvey, P.M., and Heckard, R.F. (1994). Relative visibility of increased legend size vs. brighter materials for traffic signs. FHWA-RD-94-035, Report. Washington, DC: FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Mast, T.M., and Balias, J.A. (1976). Diversionary signing content and driver behavior. Transportation Research Record 600, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 14-19. McNees, R.W. and Messer, C.J. (1982). Reading time and accuracy of response to simulated urban freeway guide signs. Transportation Research Record 844, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 41-50. Paniati, J.F. (2003). Use of changeable message signs (CMS) for emergency security messages. FHWA Policy Memorandum — Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-memorandum cros—emergency.htm Proffitt, D.R., Wade, M.M., and Lynn, C. (1998). Creating effective variable message signs: human factors issues. Virginia Department of Transportation, VTRC 98-CR31, Final Contract Report; Project No. 9816-040-940, 25 pgs. 31 Raasch,T.W. and Rubin, G.S. (1993).Reading with low vision. Journal of the American • Optometric Association, 64(1), pgs. 15-18. Rusch, W.A. (1951). Highway accident rates as related to roadside business and advertising. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 46-50. Rykken, K.B. (1951). Minnesota roadside survey: progress report on accident, access point and advertising sign study in Minnesota. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 42-43. Sivak, M., and Olson, P.L. (1985). Optimal and minimal luminance characteristics for retroreflective highway signs. Transportation Research Record, 1027, 53-56. Schieber, F. (1998). Optimizing the legibility of symbol highway signs. Vision in Vehicles VI. Amsterdam: North -Holland Publishers. pgs. 163-170. Smiley, A., MacGregor, C., Dewar, R.E., and Blamey C. (1998). Evaluation of prototype tourist signs for Ontario. Transportation Research Record 1628, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 34-40. Smiley, A., Persaud, B., Bahar, G., Mollett, C., Lyon, C., and Smahel, T., (2005). Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Smiley, A., Smahel, T., and Eizenman, M. (2004). The impact of video advertising on driver fixation patterns. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, • Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Stainforth, R.W. and Kniveton, P.E. (1996). Display technologies for VMS. Traffic Technology Intemational'96. Annual Review Issue, pgs. 208-13. Staplin, L., Gish, K.W., Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., Harkey, D.L., Tarawneh, M.S., Lyles, R., Mace, D., & Garvey, P. (1997). Synthesis of human factors research on older drivers and highway safety, Vol. II.Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-095. Stutts, J., Feaganes, J., Rodgman, E., Hamlett, C., Meadows, T., Reinfurt, D., Gish, K., Mercadante, M., and Staplin, L. (2003). Distractions in everyday driving. AAA Foundation For Traffic Safety Final Report. Available at: http://www. aaafoundation.org/pdf/distractionsineverydaydriving.pdf Tantala, M.W. and P.J. Tantala. (2005). An examination of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic safety. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 25 pgs. Ullman, G. (2001). Wording on changeable message signs studied. Urban transportation monitor 15(16), pg. 3. Upchurch, J. Armstrong, J.D., Baaj, M.H., and Thomas, G.B. (1992). Evaluation of variable message signs: Target value, legibility, and viewing comfort. Transportation Research • Record. No. 1376, pgs. 35-44. 32 • USDOT (2003). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available at http://i-nutcd.fhwa.dot.gov USSC. (2003). United States Sign Council best practices standards for on -premise signs. Available at: http://www.usse.org/publications.html Wachtel, J. (1981). Electronic advertising along highways --concern for traffic safety. Public Roads, 45(1), pgs. 1-5. Wachtel, J., and Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and environmental design consideration in the use of commercial electronic variable -message signage. Federal Highway Administration Final Report: FHWA-RD-80-051, 101pgs. Wallace, B. (2003a). Driver distraction by advertising: genuine risk or urban myth? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 156, Issue ME3, Pgs. 185 —190. Available at: http://cogprints.org/3307/01/driverdistractionarticle.pdf Wallace, B. (2003b). External -to -vehicle driver distraction. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit Report. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/finance/evdd-OO.asp Zineddin, A.Z., Garvey, P.M., and Pietrucha, M.T. (2005). Impact of sign orientation on on - premise commercial signs. Journal of Transportation En ing eering. Vol. 131(1), 11-17. Wourms, D.F., Cunningham, P.H., Self, D.A., and Johnson, S.J. (2001). Bus signage guidelines isfor persons with visual impairments: electronic signs. Federal Transit Administration Report FTA-VA-26-7026-02.1. Yager, D., Aquilante, K., and Plass, R. (1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38, pgs. 2527-2531. Young, S. (2004). Visibility achieved by outdoor advertising. Perception Research Services Summary Report. Available at: http://www.prsresearch.com/articles/visibility achieved by outdoor ad.htm Zwahlen, H.T., Sunkara, M., and Schnell, T. (1995). Review of legibility relationships within the context of textual information presentation. Transportation Research Record, No. 1485, pgs. 61-70. 33 0 Appendix A Annotated Bibliography A-1 • Battelle. (2004). Amber, emergency, and travel time messaging guidance for transportation agencies. Battelle Memorial Institute, Final Report. 22 pgs. Abstract: This study was undertaken to provide guidance to transportation officials in planning, designing, and providing various types of traveler information messages using changeable message signs (CMSs). Three primary issues related to messaging are addressed by these guidelines: (1) The basis for the message, i.e., what condition is occurring, what segment is impacted, and what outcome or driver response is desired; (2) How the content is determined, i.e., how is the message structured to maximize driver comprehension, is the message aimed at commuters, unfamiliar drivers, or other groups, is the content automated or put together by a TMC operator, and how is the message coordinated with other information dissemination techniques, e.g., 511; and (3) What policies govern the display of messages, i.e., whose authority is needed to initiate a message, what are the arrangements for posting, updating, and terminating a message, what is the process for interagency coordination (especially with non -transportation agencies), how are messages prioritized during periods when multiple messages. are desired, and how are 24/7 operations ensured. The study was divided into three tasks: (1) a literature/background review; (2) a "scan" of the practice; and (3) best practices/lessons learned. Beijer, D. (2004). Observed driver glance behavior at roadside advertising. Presented at Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 14 pgs. • Abstract: Express routes in North America are becoming more crowded, both in traffic density and in visual clutter, resulting in a higher demand for driver attention, a possible concern for regulators. Advertising signs add to this demand on visual attention. This study focused on glance behaviour of 25 drivers at various advertising signs along a Toronto expressway. Subjects averaged glances of 0.57 seconds in duration (sd = 0.41), and 35.6 glances per subject in total (sd = 26.4). Active signs, containing moveable displays or components, comprised 51 % of signs, and received significantly more glances (69% of all glances and 78% of long glances). Number of glances was significantly lower for passive signs (0.64 glances per subject per sign) when compared to active signs (greater than 1.31 glances per subject per sign). Number of long glances was also greater for active signs compared to the passive signs. Sign placement in the visual field may be critical. This study provides empirical information to assist regulatory agencies in setting policy on commercial signing. Bergeron, J. (1997). An evaluation of the influence of roadside advertising on road safety in the greater Montreal region. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the Northeast Association of State Transportation Officials Quebec, Canada, pg. 527. Abstract: In Quebec, the Loi sur la publicite le long des routes [Act goerning roadside advertising] adopted in 1988 prohibits the installation of billboards within 100 meters of a highway right-of-way. However, the Act does not apply to Urban Community, City and Township territories. This legal loophole has allowed many billboards to be constructed alongside highways in metropolitan areas including Montreal. It has been shown that such billboards are accident -promoting factors. A-2 In an urban setting, analysis of the relation between posted advertising - either conventional or • variable message type - and increased driver information-processing mental loading defines this problem clearly. In light of its responsibilities in road safety matters, the ministere des transports has therefore proposed amending the Code de la securite routiere to prohibit the installation of such billboards in certain areas deemed particularly at risk. Brill, L.M. (2002). LED Billboards: Outdoor advertising in the video age. SignIndustry.com. Available at: http://www.signindustry.com/led/articles/2002-07-30-LBledBillboards.php3 Abstract: LED video display billboards have emerged on a grand scale that converges into a unique display format that is one part print, one part television advertising and one 'digital hieroglyphics.' LED video billboards, like their print counterparts, can be seen hanging out on the sides of freeways silently shouting brand identity, product placements and message of 'buy now for the best deal of a lifetime.' Cao, Y. and Wang, J.H. (2003). Evaluation of design and display factors of changeable message signs. Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003 Annual Meeting and Exhibit. 24 pgs. Abstract: A two-phase study on the design and display factors of changeable message signs (CMSs) was • conducted through a series of blocked -factorial experiments. Subjects sit in the driver's seat of a 1998 Ford Taurus sedan. Computers generated CMS images, merged with a driver's view driving video, and were projected onto a screen in front of the vehicle. Subjects were required to make proper responses signaling their comprehension of the CMS stimuli. Eighteen subjects balanced by age and gender participated the experiments. Phase I investigated the effects of discrete displayed CMSs' font size, font color, subjects' age, gender, and their interactions. It found that font color, drivers' age, and gender significantly affected response time. Green and 5 x 7 matrix were the best font color and font size, respectively. Older drivers responded the fastest among the three age groups but with the lowest accuracy. No significant correlations were found between response time and accuracy. Response times of different subjects were significantly different, but the effects of font color and size were consistent. Phase II studied the influences of display format, number of message lines, lighting, driving lane, and their interactions. It found that discrete displayed messages took less response time than sequential displayed ones. Single - line messages were better than multiple -line ones. Motorists could better view CMSs in sunny days, and better view CMSs when driving in the outer lane. Older drivers exhibited slower response and less accuracy than younger drivers; females exhibited slower response but higher accuracy than males Chatterjee, K., Hounsell, N.B., Firmin, P.E., and Bonsall, P.W. (2002). Driver response to variable message sign information in London. Transportation Research. Part C: Emerging Technologies 10(2), pgs 149-169. Abstract: This paper presents the results of a study of driver response to information on variable message A-3 • signs (VMS) that have been installed in London to notify motorists of planned events and current network problems. Questionnaires were employed to investigate the effect of different messages on route choice. Stated intention data from the questionnaire was used to calibrate logistic regression models relating the probability of route diversion to driver, journey and message characteristics. The resultant models indicate that the location of the incident and the message content are important factors influencing the probability of diversion. A survey of drivers' actual responses during the activation of an immediate warning message showed that only one-third of drivers saw the information presented to them and few of these drivers diverted, although many found the information useful. The rate of diversion was only one -fifth of the number predicted from the results of the stated intention questionnaire. The low response rate achieved for the stated intention survey is thought to have exaggerated drivers' responsiveness to VMS messages. Survey data for another UK city with a newly installed VMS system showed that the number of drivers diverting due to VMS information was very similar to that expected from the results of the stated intention questionnaire. The results of the current study suggest that the low proportion of drivers noticing VMS information has implications for the future placement of VMS so that the best opportunities for drivers to see the information are exploited. Results also suggest that the current usage to display advance warnings may be detracting from its effectiveness as a means of disseminating immediate warning information in incident -management situations. Coetzee, J.L. (2003). The evaluation of content on outdoor advertisements. South African National Roads Agency Final Report, 13 pgs. Available at: http://www.itse.co.za/ • Abstract: Using the number of bits on advertisement content as the only quantitative criteria was identified as a problem. Accident statistics were evaluated to determine the relationship between advertisements and increased accident rates and it was found that in general, advertisements result in higher accident rates. No accident data related to the content of advertisements was however found. This study investigates an analytical approach to evaluate the contents on advertisements, based on the characteristics of the driver. These characteristics include vision, reaction time, reading time, legibility factors, spare capacity to process information and selective attention. A parallel is drawn between a drivers reading of road signs and the reading of outdoor advertisements. A concept of the critical zone — the 500m in front of an advertisement - is developed and the control of content in this zone is quantified. Rules are proposed to evaluate the content for advertisements that will hopefully provide a more practical, defendable approach to evaluate the content of outdoor advertisements. ' Colomb, M. and Hubert, R. (1991). Legibility and contrast requirements of variable -message signs. Transportation Research Record, No.1318, pgs. 137-141. Abstract: New technologies such as optic fibers and light -emitting diodes are now used for information matrix signs. A field study was carried out to evaluate the best conditions for the legibility of these signs during the day and at night. For legibility criteria, the contrast between the letters and the sign background is chosen for daylight conditions and the luminance of the letters for night conditions. The performance of some commercially available signs is compared with the study • results. A-4 Colomb, M., Hubert, R., Carta, V., and Bry, M. (1991). Variable -message signs: legibility and • recognition of symbols. Proceedings of the Conference, Strategic Highway Research Program and Traffic Safety on Two Continents, Gothenburg, Sweden, pgs. 46-62. Abstract: A laboratory study of the understanding of six types of signs was conducted using transparencies produced by the EDGAR graphic software developed for the purpose. The signs were presented to observers for a limited time. The influences of the number of points in the matrix and of the shape of the symbol were investigated. This study raises the problem of specifying matrix symbols. It should be continued in an attempt to arrive at simple recommendations for the main symbols. It would be best to discuss this question at the international, or at the European level, since the symbols on road signs should be the same in all countries. CTC & Associates, LLC (2003). Electronic billboards and highway safety. Bureau of Highway Operations, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 8 pgs. Available at: http://www. dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/tsrs/tsrelectronicbillboards.pdf Abstract: We located two FHWA resources that are especially helpful for getting familiar with the issues: the Office of Real Estate Services (ORES) Web site and the study entitled Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. The study affords an in-depth look at how states are regulating electronic outdoor advertising, from lenient • control at one end to the prohibition of outdoor advertising at the other. Wisconsin addresses the issue with rules for the content, timing and brightness of EBBs and tri-vision signs. However, standard billboard guidelines governing EBBs and tri-vision signs do not exist: few states, in fact, define the term "electronic billboard." Research on the issue of electronic ads causing driver distraction would suggest that the jury is still out. While some studies conclude that extra- vehicular distractions cause crashes, it has proven difficult to identify and measure the role of electronic advertising in driver distraction. However, promising methodologies have been proposed for focused study of the issue, and for trimming the risk of driver distraction from electronic advertising. Dadic, I., Kos, G., and Brlek, P. (2003). Application of changeable message signs in traffic. Promet Traffic-Traffico, 15(5). Pgs. 307-314. Abstract: In the Republic of Croatia, changeable message signs are being introduced on high serviceable roads in order to improve the flow management in the network and increase the traffic safety level. The equipment installed in the past was not set according to the unique criteria, thus resulting in the installation of relatively incompatible equipment set in a disorganized manner. This work presents the basic guidelines in applying changeable message signs, primarily on the Croatian motorways. The types and levels of influence on the traffic are described, and the traffic and weather criteria for the application of changeable message signs are defined. The paper also analyzes the principles of installing the changeable message signs on roads and road facilities, • recommending priorities in presenting the changeable signs. A-5 • Davis, P., Sunkari, S., Dudek, C., and Balke, K. (2002). Requirements specification for DMS message optimization software tool (MOST) Texas Department of Transportation Final Report No. FHWA/TX-03/4023-2, 110 pgs. Abstract: Composing a message for a dynamic message sign (DMS) requires managers and supervisors at the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Traffic Management Centers to consider numerous factors. For example, they must consider the content and length of the message as well as memory load for motorists. Following documented guidelines about formatting and phrasing of messages, the requirements for a software system called the DMS Message Optimization Software Tool, or MOST, are discussed. The system is designed to accept input data through a graphical user interface, to allow selection of terms, and to produce a message suitable for display in a DMS. The application automatically applies principles of good message design and allows users to customize their messages. The design of the system follows work done previously in TxDOT Project 0-4023. Dudek, C.L. (1991). Guidelines on the use of changeable message signs. Final Report - DTFH61-89-R-00053. 269p. U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Abstract: The 1986 FHWA publication "Manual on Real -Time Motorist Information Displays" provides • practical guidelines for the development, design, and operation of real-time displays, both visual and auditory. The emphasis in the Manual is on the recommended content of messages to be displayed in various traffic situations; the manner in which messages are to be displayed --format, coding, style, length, load redundancy, and number of repetitions; and where the messages should be placed with respect to the situations they are explaining. This report is intended to provide guidance on 1) selection of the appropriate type of Changeable Message Sign (CMS) display, 2) the design and maintenance of CMSs to improve target value and motorist reception of messages, and 3) pitfalls to be avoided, and it updates information contained in the Manual. The guidelines and updated information are based on research results and on practices being employed by highway agencies in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. CMS technology developments since 1984 are emphasized. Since the use of matrix -type CMSs, particularly light -emitting technologies, has increased in recent years. Matrix CMSs have received additional attention in this report. The report concentrates on design issues relative to CMSs with special emphasis on visual aspects, but does not establish specific criteria to determine whether to implement displays. The intent is to address display design issues for diverse systems ranging from highly versatile signing systems integrated with elaborate freeway corridor surveillance and control operations to low cost, less sophisticated surveillance and signing systems intended to alleviate a single specific problem. Dudek, C.L. (1997). Changeable message signs. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice. 237, • 63 pgs. Abstract: This synthesis will be of interest to traffic engineers in federal, state, provincial, and local A-6 transportation agencies that are responsible for the design and operation of safe and efficient • highway systems. It will also be useful to consulting traffic engineers, sign manufacturers, and vendors in the private sector who assist governmental clients in the application of changeable message sign (CMS) and other intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. It is an update of NCHRP Synthesis No. 61 (1979). It describes the various types of permanently mounted CMSs in use in the United States and Canada. This technology, also referred to as "variable message signs" or "motorist information displays", is in widespread use in North America. This report of the Transportation Research Board provides information on the various CMS types in use, their typical characteristics, including the technology types, the character (letters and numbers) types and size, and conspicuity. The synthesis presents a discussion on the types of messages used when there are no incidents. Other aspects, such as procurement, maintainability, and warranties are also discussed. Dudek, C; Trout, N; Booth, S; Ullman, G. (2000). Improved dynamic message sign messages and operations. Texas Department of Transportation Final Report No. FHWA/TX-01/1882-2, 188 pgs. Abstract: This report provides the results of an extensive laboratory investigation of a total of 15 specific issues related to dynamic message sign (DMS) operations statewide. These issues were identified and approved by the Texas Department of Transportation project advisors responsible for DMS operations in their respective districts. Laptop computers were used to simulate DMS message displays. After each message display, participating subject drivers responded to questions • designed to determine the level of recall and comprehension of the information contained in the message. Response times as well as message format/sign operating preferences were also collected from the subject drivers. The report contains specific recommendations concerning DMS issues in the following four categories: (1) communicating time and day for future roadwork to motorists; (2) motorist interpretations of specific words or phrases used on DMSs; (3) DMS operating practices; and (4) using DMSs with lane control signals Dudek, C.L. and Ullman, G.L. (2002). Flashing messages, flashing lines, and alternating one line on changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No. 1803, pgs. 94-101. Abstract: Results of human factors laboratory studies conducted in Texas pertaining to the display of messages using the following dynamic characteristics of changeable message signs (CMSs) are presented: (a) the effect of flashing an entire one -frame message, (b) the effect of flashing one line of a one -frame message; and (c) the effect of alternating text on one line of a three -line CMS while keeping the other two lines of text the same. Two hundred sixty Texas drivers were recruited in Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio to participate in the laboratory studies designed to simulate these CMS characteristics on laptop computers. The drivers responded to questions designed to determine the level of recall and comprehension of the information contained in the message. Response times, message format, and sign operating preferences were also collected. The results showed that in the laboratory setting, flashing a one- • frame message did not adversely affect driver recall or comprehension to a significant degree compared with when the message was not flashed. However, average reading times were A-7 • significantly higher when the message was flashed. Flashing one line of a three -line message appeared to adversely affect recall of parts of the message. In addition, average reading times were significantly higher for the flashing line message. Alternating one line of text and keeping the other two lines constant did not adversely affect message recall. However, average reading times increased significantly. Durkop, B.R. and Dudek, C.L. (2001). Texas driver understanding of abbreviations for changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No.1748, pgs 87-95. Abstract: Research was conducted as part of an ongoing project for the Texas Department of Transportation to evaluate the use of changeable message signs (CMSs) in Texas. The objective was to determine motorist understanding of abbreviations for use on CMSs. A human factors study was conducted in six locations in Texas. Participants were given a list of abbreviations and were asked to interpret the full words or phrases. The results identified 24 abbreviations that were understood at an acceptable level for use on CMSs in Texas; acceptability was based on a criterion of 8 5 % or more of the participants' correctly interpreting the word or phrase. Differences in study location comprehension levels were also examined. Twelve abbreviations were recommended for use only at particular locations on the basis of the varying comprehension levels among the six study locations. Abbreviations that were understood by less than 85% of the participants were not recommended for use in Texas. • FHWA. (1996). Uniform traffic control and warning messages for portable changeable message signs. FHWA-RD-95-173, Summary Report, 2 pgs. Abstract: The purpose of this study was to develop and test word and symbol traffic control and hazard warning messages for use on portable changeable message signs (PCMSs). The literature was reviewed, State highway engineers were interviewed, PCMS manufacturers were surveyed, and motorists were questioned to develop an extensive list of candidate PCMS messages for subsequent evaluation during the laboratory and field-testing. More than 800 messages were identified for 30 situations. The laboratory studies were conducted to identify those key words or phrases that the motorist felt were most effective. Field tests, both daytime and nighttime, were conducted for candidate messages that lacked a clear winner during the laboratory studies. Also six symbol messages were shown during the field tests to evaluate motorist comprehension of these messages. This summary report presents some of the research results. The full report, which has the same title as this summary report, is FHWA-RD-95-171 (TRIS 00720253). FHWA. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction. Federal. Highway Administration Final Report. Report No. FHWA-RD- 01-071. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/elecbbrd/index.htm#contents. • Abstract: Advances in outdoor display technology, and decreases in cost, support an interest in expanding deployment of high resolution and dynamic imaging in outdoor advertising. This raises questions • on the effects that electronic billboards (EBBs) and other dynamic signs such as tri-vision signs may have on driver distraction. The purpose of this report is to present a review of the literature on the safety implications of electronic billboards, to identify knowledge gaps in the findings of the review, and to develop a research plan to address the knowledge gaps. The general approach in this review was to identify information about potential safety implications of EBBs. Factual data regarding billboard safety were sought through a review of existing research literature and information obtained from government staff. Because driver distraction is of interest in other areas of research, such as cellular telephone use and in -vehicle visual information equipment, the present report examines these areas for possible cross-fertilization results. The report concludes with a set of research questions and research findings that are directed to the safe design of dynamic billboards. FHWA. (2003). Portable changeable message sign handbook: PCMS. FHWA-RD-03-066. McLean, VA 22101. 10 pgs. Abstract: A portable changeable message sign (PCMS) is a traffic control device that is capable of displaying a variety of messages to inform motorists of unusual driving conditions. This capability is achieved through elements on the face of the sign that can be activated to form letters or symbols. The message is limited by the size of the sign (usually three lines with eight characters per line). A PCMS is housed on a trailer or on a truck bed and can be deployed • quickly for meeting the temporary requirements frequently found in work zones or accident areas. The purpose of this handbook is to present basic guidelines for the use of PCMSs. This handbook presents information on the PCMS and is intended to illustrate the principles of proper PCMS use. Finley, M.D., Wooldridge, M.D., Mace, D, and Denholm, J. (2001). Photometric requirements for portable changeable message signs. Texas Department of Transportation, TX-02/4940-2, Research Report 4940-2, TTI: 7-4940.40 pgs. Abstract: Portable changeable message signs (PCMSs) are traffic control devices that advise motorists of unexpected traffic and routing situations. In contrast to static signing, PCMSs convey dynamic information in a variety of applications, such as work zones, incident management, traffic management, and warning of adverse conditions. Although PCMSs have been used in traffic control applications for many years, there are no established photometric standards for the device that can be used as the basis for a procurement specification. The only provision related to the visibility of PCMSs is a requirement in the "Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways --Part VI" which indicates that PCMSs be visible from at least a half mile (under ideal day and night conditions) and the sign message is legible at a minimum of 650 ft. However, the manual does not provide a means for determining whether PCMSs meet these criteria. This project reviewed the performance of PCMSs and developed photometric standards • to establish performance requirements. In addition, researchers developed photometric test methods and recommended them for use in evaluating the performance of PCMSs. This report includes a review of the literature and provides documentation for the standards and procedures A-9 • recommended. Flad, H.K. (1997). Country clutter: visual pollution and the rural roadscape. The Annals, 553, pgs. 117-129. Abstract: The landscape of rural America has been profoundly influenced by social, cultural, and economic changes. The rural roadscape is a visible text of these changes, and the transportation palimpsest a cultural text of the American ideal of mobility. This article briefly examines the growth of the presence of the automobile and the automobile's role in changing the face of rural America, with an emphasis on the aesthetics of the roadscape. In the late twentieth century, a concern for the visual environment has become an important part of environmental assessment, and selected aspects of roadside visual pollution, particularly signs, are examined, especially as they relate to federal and state legislation concerning billboards. Lastly, public and private sector efforts to preserve and enhance cultural and historical rural landscapes, through such measures as the designation of scenic roads, is presented as an example of more holistic transportation planning Fontaine, M.D. (2003). Guidelines for application of portable work zone intelligent transportation systems. Transportation Research Record No1824, pgs. 15-22. • Abstract: Work zone intelligent transportation systems (WZITSs) are promoted as a way to improve safety and reduce congestion at work zone locations where traditional traffic management centers do not exist. These systems usually integrate portable changeable message signs and speed sensors with a central control system that automatically determines appropriate messages that are based on current traffic conditions. Manufacturers of these systems claim that WZITSs can warn drivers of downstream congestion, alert drivers to slower speeds ahead, and suggest alternate routes on the basis of prevailing conditions. Transportation agencies are often asked to make decisions on the installation of a WZITS without the benefit of objective information on its expected performance. Relatively few operational tests of these systems have been performed, and the results are not always well documented or conclusive. Agencies need guidance to help them determine whether a WZITS system would improve safety and operations at a specific site. Applications of WZITSs are reviewed, and a series of guidelines for their deployment, based on lessons learned from past tests, is presented. Garvey, P.M. and Mace, D.J. (1996). Changeable message sign visibility. Federal Highway Administration Report No: FHWA-RD-94-077, Final Report, 137 pgs. Abstract: The object of this contract was to identify problems with the visibility of changeable message signs (CMSs), particularly for older drivers, and to develop design guidelines and operational • recommendations to ensure adequate conspicuity and legibility of in-service CMSs. This project was divided into three main sections: a field survey of in -use CMSs, a series of laboratory experiments and static field studies, and a partially controlled dynamic field study. The research A-10 was designed to optimize CMS components, including the character variables (font, width -to- • height ratio, color, and contrast orientation) and the message variables (inter -letter, inter -word, and inter -line spacing). Guerrier, J. and Wachtel, J. (2001). A simulator study of driver response to changeable message signs of differing message length and format (abstract only). Driving Assessment 2001: The First International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. Aspen, Colorado, pgs. 164-165. Abstract: Highway congestion nationwide continues to increase, and three Florida urban areas rank among the top ten. Florida has been studying and implementing intelligent transportation system technologies to address its congestion problems, with a focus on its special populations such as the elderly and multi -cultural groups for which English is not the primary language. One of these technologies most widely deployed is the changeable message sign (CMS). Fifty-two CMSs are operational in Florida, with 39 more scheduled for deployment soon. Although CMSs have the potential to facilitate travel, certain issues must be considered to ensure that they do not exacerbate the congestion problem. One key CMS operational issue is the number of phases required to present a complete message. "On -time" for two-phase messages varies from 2.5 to 5 seconds per phase across the State. Of course, the appropriateness of this on -time depends not only on the characteristics of the CMS itself, but on the road, traffic and weather conditions, and driver characteristics. This study, funded by the National Institute on Aging, investigated issues • related to the number of CMS phases and their on -time. The authors used a low-cost, interactive driving simulator supplemented with a video monitor above the main display. While simulator screens presented interactive road and traffic conditions, the supplemental monitor displayed the CMS. Young and old drivers drove the simulator under different workload conditions and responded to road closure/detour information on the CMS. All CMS displays were developed in accordance with accepted guidelines and were reviewed for content by independent experts. Results showed consistent and significant age effects across all tested conditions. In addition, the authors found significantly poorer response for all drivers under the two-phase CMS, despite the fact that the message "on -time" was nearly 2 seconds longer than that used in two major Florida jurisdictions. The findings have implications for CMS design and operation in Florida and in other jurisdictions with similar populations. Harder, K.A., Bloomfield, J., and Chihak, B.J. (2003). The effectiveness and safety of traffic and non -traffic related messages presented on changeable message signs (CMS). Minnesota Department of Transportation MN/RC-2004-27 Final Report. 61 pgs. Abstract: The objectives of this study investigating Changeable Message Signs (CMS) were to determine whether or not CMS messages really work, whether or not they cause traffic slow downs, and whether or not they have an impact on traffic flow. The participants were 120 licensed drivers from three age groups --I 8-24, 32-47, and 55-65 years old. Two experiments were conducted in a • fully -interactive, PC -based STISIM driving simulator. Experiment One investigated the effectiveness of the following message, "CRASH/AT WYOMING AVE/USE THOMPSON EXIT." In Experiment Two, the final CMS message was: "AMBER ALERT/RED FORD A-11 • TRUCK/MN LIC# SLM 509." Results were as follows: In Experiment Two, only 8.3% of the participants had Excellent AMBER Recall Scores, while 51.7% has Good scores. Gender significantly affected the AMBER Recall Scores --there were more females than males in the Excellent Category. A greater proportion of those who knew what AMBER Alert meant were in the Excellent and Good Categories. 21.7% of the participants slowed down by at least 2 mph. Whether or not traffic delays will result from drivers slowing to read AMBER Alerts in real life will depend on the extent of the slow downs and on current traffic density. In Experiment One, 55.8% of the participants took the Thompson Exit after seeing the Thompson Exit Message. Of the 53 participants who did not take the exit (1) 35.9% ignored the CMS message because they did not think that it applied to them; (2) 35.9% did not understand the CMS message; and (3) 22.5% did not notice the message. (It is not known why 5.7% of the 53 did not take the exit.) Changes to the wording of the messages are recommended. Hitchins, D (2001). Lowercase font set development for variable message signs (VMS). 8th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 10 pgs. Abstract: Current Transit New Zealand (road controlling authority in New Zealand) policy dictates that within the most heavily congested sections of the Auckland motorway system, Variable Message Signs (VMS) are used only to display traffic related messages. When not doing so they remain blank. For some, this policy has been of concern, since when a VMS is blank drivers cannot tell • whether it is working or not, and therefore whether traffic conditions are normal. The counter - argument to this is that VMS illuminated with unimportant information may cause unnecessary distraction to motorists. Also, if signs are displaying a message of some sort all of the time; drivers might not read the messages at all in time, on the basis that they are rarely important. One method of overcoming this problem is to display familiar safety messages on selected VMS using lower case font. This will enable drivers to perhaps distinguish general safety messages from important road related information, which is normally displayed using upper case font. The benefits, costs and risks associated with current Transit practice has yet to be quantified. Empirical studies to gain a better understanding of driver behavior and response to this practice is currently underway and will aim to investigate and identify a range of options available for extended display on VMS, along with their likely impacts. Holick, A.J. (2000). Development of portable variable message sign user guidelines for common applications. Compendium: papers on advanced surface transportation systems, pgs. 89-120. Abstract: This report focuses on the development of guidelines for the use of portable variable message signs (PVMS). The guidelines are designed to assist users in properly placing the PVMS and message displays. Information was collected on researched guidelines and state DOT operators' manuals and the results were compared. A draft set of user guidelines based on these comparisons was then produced. The guidelines covered the following areas: process, audience, • purpose format, logical order, visual inspection, and terminating and updating messages. Huchingson, R.D. and Dudek, C.L. (1983). How to abbreviate on highway signs A-12 Transportation Research Record, No. 904, pgs. 1-4. • Abstract: This study investigated abbreviations for 80 traffic -related words by having a sample of drivers compose abbreviations and then having a different sample identify the word after being given the most popular abbreviation. Abbreviations were classified by percentage of subjects who correctly identified the words when presented alone and, again, when presented in the context of another word. The study identified strategies employed in abbreviating words, explored the relation between highly stereotyped abbreviations and success in understanding them, and recommended a set of abbreviations that likely could be used successfully on changeable - message signs. Jones, S.L. Jr., and Thompson, M.W. (2002). State of the practice for displaying non -traffic related messages on dynamic message signs. Today's Transportation Challenge: Meeting Our Customer's Expectations. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 22 pgs. Abstract: Dynamic message signs (DMS), also referred to as changeable message signs (CMS) and variable message signs (VMS), have been used for over 30 years to provide traffic information to motorists and have become a prominent component of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). They have become an important component of many advanced traveler information and traffic management systems. DMS allow for the dissemination of real-time traffic information to • motorists and are generally deployed in urban areas to inform motorists of traffic conditions (e.g., expected delays, estimated travel times, diversion routes, lane closures). DMS have become an important source of motorist information during incidents, special events, and work zone traffic control. The value of DMS, or any traffic information source, is dependent on two items: (1) The accuracy and usefulness of the information disseminated; (2) Motorists' willingness and ability to understand and utilize the information. The latter point involves the public perception of traffic information technologies. The quality of traffic -related messages as well as the overall presence of DMS affects the public perception. Traffic management agencies must understand that DMS affect public perception even when they are not actively conveying traffic -related information. Motorists may perceive blank signs as inoperable or may question the allocation of resources to technologies that seem to be (from their perspective) underutilized. On the other hand, displaying information not germane to real-time traffic conditions may erode the credibility of DMS and reduce their effectiveness as a traffic management tool. The purpose of the research presented herein was to assess the professional opinion regarding DMS usage during normal traffic conditions. Kang, T.J. and Muter P. (1989). Reading dynamically displayed text. Behavior & Information Technology, 8(1), pgs. 33-42. Abstract: Two experiments were carried out to find an optimal electronic text display method given limited display space. The display formats tested fell into two categories: Times Square, in which text is • scrolled from right to left; and rapid, serial, visual presentation (RSVP), in which text is presented one or several words at a time to a fixed location in the display. Previous studies have A-13 • indicated that Times Square format is not as efficient as page format display or, by extrapolation, as RSVP. These studies, unlike the present experiments, did not include a smooth -scrolling (pixel -by -pixel) condition. In Experiment 1, a comparison was made between multiple -word RSVP and three versions of Times Square format, differing only in the size of the steps by which the display was scrolled. Except for the largest step -size, comprehension was as high in the Times Square condition as in the RSVP condition. The subjects expressed a significant preference for smooth scrolling Times Square over any other condition. Experiment 2 showed that comprehension for smooth scrolling Times Square was at least as high as that for RSVP at presentation rates ranging from 100 to 300 words per minute. Times Square reading is discussed in -terms of optokinetic nystagmus (OKN). Lee, K. (2004). Electronic billboard: its influence on public space. Master's Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Television, Radio, Film and Theatre San Jose State University. Abstract: As an outdoor advertising medium, the electronic billboard, which is a combination of a billboard and television, has been emerging. However, little research has been done concerning the medium. Using multiple methodological approaches, this thesis investigates the influence of the electronic billboard on public space. Initially, it explores the space -altering characteristic of the electronic billboard by examining billboards and television respectively in terms of their relationships with environments. Secondly, it conducted observational research in Times Square, • New York, and Shibuya, Tokyo, and recorded the phenomenon of electronic billboards. The information and data gathered from this research are discussed ethnographically and analyzed using typology. Research on this subject reveals that the electronic billboard makes its location placeless by delivering messages, which are not relevant to its geographical origin. In the larger context of urbanization, the electronic billboard represents a birth of antigeographical place. Lee, S.E., Olsen, E.C.B., and DeHart, M.C. (2003). Driving performance in the presence and absence of billboards. Executive Summary. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, DC. 5 pgs. Abstract: The goal of this project was to ascertain whether or not driving behavior changes in the presence or absence of billboards. Drivers' visual behavior was measured by eyeglance location. In addition, lane deviation and speed changes were noted. The conclusion of the study was that billboards to not cause a change in driving behavior when driving behavior is evaluated in terms of maintenance of speed, visual behavior, or keeping in one's lane. Lewis, D.J. (2000). Photometric requirements for arrow panels and portable changeable message signs. AASHTO Conference Proceedings Juneau, Alaska, pgs. 215-221 Abstract: isArrow panels and portable changeable message signs are often used. in work zones to inform drivers of the need for a lane change or caution. The "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" (MUTCD) requires that Type C arrow panels have a minimum legibility distance of 1.6 A-14 km (1 mi). However, the MUTCD does not provide a subjective means for determining whether • an arrow panel meets this criterion. Nor are there industry photometric standards for message panels. The purpose of this project is to develop a reliable and repeatable objective method for measuring the photometrics of arrow and message panels to ensure adequate performance. The research project tasks include a review of the state of the art, reviews of existing pertinent specifications, development of initial test methods, evaluations of arrow and message panel visibility and the effectiveness of the test methods, revisions and modifications of the test methods, and documentation of research activities and findings. The research findings will be described in a research report and a project summary report. The recommended test methods will be included in both documents. Lopez, E. and Abedon, D. (2001). Operational standards for dynamic message signs. 8th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. Sydney, Australia. 9 pgs. Abstract: The term dynamic message sign is an umbrella classification for numerous intelligent transportation systems (ITS) en -route information sign technologies. Included under this umbrella are: changeable message signs, variable message signs, blank out signs, and lane control signs. This research effort looks at permanent variable and changeable message sign technologies only and will refer to them as "variable message signs (VMS)." With the proliferation of dynamic message signs throughout the United States, are variable message signs being operated and maintained uniformly at a national level, if not, is the overall effectiveness • and benefits to the motoring public being compromised? Past experience with static signs has shown that by unifying how signs are installed, operated and maintained the same "look and feel" is created so that all motorists respond to the sign in the same manner regardless of where they are in the nation. With no clear guidance on this issue, state and local agencies are struggling with, and at times developing their own standards on VMS operations. This challenge has led many practitioners to haphazardly install variable message signs around the nation without being accountable of any consequences. Lucas, A. and Montoro, L. (2004). Some critical remarks on a new traffic system: VMS part II. In: the human factors of transport signs. CRC Press LLC, pgs 199-212. Abstract: Information technologies are aiding the growth of new and more rational road transport systems. At the core of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), traffic management and control critically depend on technical devices and road information well suited for road users because, in the end, the information in front of road users (e.g. VMS) is the basic tool for improving road traffic. In addition to a necessary technological optimism, a critical view is necessary for lessening or avoiding pitfalls. New presentation systems may distort the road sign system and worsen communication to road users. Official and unofficial road signs are currently undergoing promising research and professional and policy inquiries, hopefully to aid mobility and road safety. It is clear, though, that ITS may promote a heterogeneous, uncontrolled extension of the • road sign system, thus making interpretation on the part of road users more difficult. In addition to changing road information elements (e.g., pictograms, abbreviations, and verbal labels), new VMS device structures force the use of different message formats, making road sign A-15 • harmonization and coherence all the more difficult. Metaxatos, P. and Soot, S. (2001). Evaluation of the driver's ability to recall the message content of portable changeable message signs in highway work zones. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 40(1), pgs. 129-141. Abstract: This paper examines factors that affect the ability of drivers to recall Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS) messages in highway work zones. A Chi square analysis has found that the time of day, driver's age, type of vehicle, and familiarity with the site are relevant factors, and that drivers were more likely to recall messages that contain action rather than problem statements. A regression analysis revealed that drivers recalled the PCMS message components that they desired to see almost twice as often, and that drivers familiar with the construction site were almost twice as likely to observe an action statement. Nsour, S.A. (1997). IVHS and the elderly driving. Traffic Congestion and Traffic Safety in the 21st Century: Challenges, Innovations, and Opportunities. Chicago, Illinois, pgs. 333-339. Abstract: This study was conducted on two groups, 385 elderly people and 126 young people with the age • of 65 as the dividing line. The purpose is to examine the driving tasks that elderly see as difficult and then explore the possibilities of using Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) to solve some of the driving problems faced by the elderly. The study showed that the tasks of driving at night, driving on two-lane highways at night, driving in rainy weather at night, and reading changeable message signs are the top most difficult tasks for elderly as compared with young drivers. About 25% of the elderly surveyed view reading changeable message signs as either difficult or very difficult. The most frequent suggestions by the elderly on improvements to the highway were those related to making signs more visible/readable, increasing sign -exit distance, and increasing sign illumination and reflection. About 52% of suggestions by the elderly on vehicle instrumentation centered on making the instrumentation more visible. The percentage of elderly in favor of electronic navigation maps is roughly 62% compared to 85% of the young. Parentela, E. and Eskander, N. (2001). Effectiveness of changeable message signs (CMS) on Los Angeles freeways. Improving Transportation Systems Safety and Performance. 2001 Spring Conference and Exhibit, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Monterey, California. 6 pgs. Abstract: A survey was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of changeable message signs (CMS) along Southern California freeways in terms of driver's response to displayed messages. The survey participants are regular commuters who spend an average of less than one to three hours daily on the freeway and are familiar with the operation of CMS. The usefulness of CMS and its ability to • convey clear, accurate and reliable messages are some of the questions included in the survey. The paper also addresses the drivers' perception on trip safety and travel time. The results indicate a general agreement that CMS are helpful and reliable. Yet, while most motorists pay attention to the displayed messages and follow the diversion messages such as a detour, 28 A-16 percent consider them to be a distraction and 17 percent do not want to see additional CMS. • Proffitt, D.R., Wade, M.M., and Lynn, C. (1998). Creating effective variable message signs: human factors issues. Virginia Department of Transportation, VTRC 98-CR31, Final Contract Report; Project No. 9816-040-940, 25 pgs. Abstract: This report addresses the human factors issues related to the reading and comprehension of variable message sign (VMS) messages. A review of the literature was conducted on factors that affect how people read VMSs. Several topics were reviewed. The first topic was literacy. Since reading literacy is not a requirement for obtaining a driver's license, VMS composition should reflect the varied reading competence levels of motorists. It was found that about 25% of Virginians over the age of 16 are weak readers and will likely encounter problems reading VMSs. The second topic addressed how people read. Reading is an interactive process that derives much of its speed and accuracy from implicit knowledge acquired through familiarity. This implies that VMS messages should present familiar, standardized content whenever possible. A review of the literature on warning signs was the third topic. This review found that effective warning signs should have several properties: short, concise messages are both easier to read and more likely to be read; and signal words, such as CAUTION, are not effective. Finally, areas for further research were identified. Symbolic messages and abbreviations are worthy of further investigation as they have the potential for easy recognition, provided they are familiar to motorists and can be accommodated by the VMS. In addition, although the Manual on Uniform • Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) advises angling the VMS away from the roadway to reduce headlight glare, angling the VMS toward the roadway could be desirable for increasing readability. In both these areas, theoretical and practical work is needed. The report recommends that these human factors characteristics and limitations be taken into consideration in the deployment of VMSs and in the composition of their messages. Smiley, A., Persaud, B., Bahar, G., Mollett, C., Lyon, C., and Smahel, T., (2005). Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Abstract Road authorities are under increasing pressure from advertisers to allow video advertising in the right of way, but are understandably concerned about whether or not video signs constitute a driving hazard. At the City of Toronto's request, a comprehensive assessment of traffic safety impacts related to such signs was carried out in a series of studies involving three downtown intersections and an urban expressway site. An on -road eye fixation study was carried out to determine if drivers look at video advertising signs. Conflict studies were conducted to determine if there were more conflicts on video -visible than video -not -visible intersection approaches. A before -and -after sign installation study of headways and speeds on the urban expressway was carried out. Crashes, before and after sign installation, at the expressway and three intersection sites, were compared. Finally, a public survey was conducted to determine if video advertising • was perceived to impact traffic safety. Based on the eye fixation study and the public survey data, it is apparent that video advertising can distract drivers inappropriately, leading to individual crashes. A-17 • However, the evidence from other studies was not consistent, suggesting that for the particular signs studied, overall impacts on traffic safety are likely to be small. Further studies, especially prospective ones with larger crash data sets are required to be certain. A comparison between this study and an earlier one suggests there are large differences in driver distraction dependent on the placement and environment in which the sign is seen. Further studies are required to determine factors, which minimize driver distraction. Smiley, A., Smahel, T., and Eizenman, M. (2004). The impact of video advertising on driver fixation patterns. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Abstract: In order to assess driver distraction due to video advertising signs, eye fixation data were collected from subjects who passed 4 video advertising signs, 3 at downtown intersections and 1 on an urban expressway. On average drivers looked at the signs 45% of the time they were present. When drivers looked, they made 1.9 glances on average, with an average duration of 0.48 seconds. The distribution of eye fixations on intersection approaches where video signs were visible was compared to that on approaches on which video signs were not visible. There were no significant differences in the number of glances made at traffic signals or street signs. On the video approach there was a trend towards a greater proportion of glances at the speedometer and rear-view mirrors. Glances were made at short headways (1 second) and in unsafe circumstances (while crossing an intersection). In the downtown area, glances at static • commercial signs were made at larger angles and at shorter headways than was the case for video signs. A comparison of our results with other studies showed that video signs were less likely to be looked at than traffic signs (about half the time versus virtually every time), that individual average glance durations and total durations were similar to those found for traffic signs. However, another on -road study indicates that some video signs can be very distracting. A video sign on a curve that was directly in the line of sight and visible for an extensive period attracted 5.1 glances per exposed subject. Soot, S. and Metaxatos, P. (1999). Policies for use of changeable message signs in highway work zones Illinois Transportation Research Center Final Report, Report No. ITRC FR 97-1, 207 pgs. Abstract: Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS) systems used in work zones are programmable supplementary traffic control devices that display messages composed of letters, symbols or both and provide information and instructions to the traveling public approaching work zone activities. The study seeks to develop warrants and criteria for PCMS deployment in Illinois highway work zones. It is recommended that PCMS systems be used during long- and intermediate -term stationary work, for traffic control through incident areas, and in projects where advance -time notification is needed. The discussion focuses on spacing criteria, number of signs required, sign visibility and message legibility, text alignment, distance criteria, message • length, duration and type, project -level operational guidelines, message storage and dissemination, repair, maintenance and utility costs, as well as control and coordination issues. The study concludes that additional research is needed in order to: develop a comprehensive standardized statewide database of messages and message abbreviations; develop a • comprehensive repository with information about the technology of the various components of the PCMS units; coordinate PCMS units used in highway work zones with a corridor or regional ATMS system; and maintain information about the use of a PCMS unit in a work zone project and possibly integrate it with other relevant information in a management system. Tantala, M.W. and P.J. Tantala. (2005). An examination of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic safety. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 25 pgs. Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between advertising signs and traffic safety. The first part of this study establishes statistical correlation coefficients between advertising signs and accidents along the New Jersey Turnpike (for more than four years of data and about 23,000 accidents). This study considers various situations, with and without bias from turnpike interchanges. The results are analyzed for a variety of commonly accepted scenarios relating accident density to sign -density (the number of signs), to Viewer Reaction Distance (how far from a sign the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign), and to sign proximity (how far the accident is from the nearest sign). The second part of this study examines the incidence of traffic accidents at a specific, recently installed sign and for a period of time both before and after the installation of the sign. After the installation of a specific, advertising sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, the traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or week decreased. The results of • this study conclude that advertising signs have no significant statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. These analyses also suggest that no causal relationship between advertising signs and accidents exists. Geospatial and geostatistical methods are used rigorously. Ullman, G.L., Ullman, B.R., Dudek, C.L., and Trout, N.D. (2004). Legibility distances of smaller character light -emitting diode (LED) dynamic message signs for arterial roadways. City of Dallas Transportation Management Systems Final Report, 41pgs. Abstract: This report documents the results of a legibility study of 9-in. and 10.6-in. characters on dynamic message signs (DMSs) for use on arterial roadways. The study, conducted at Dallas, Texas, consisted of 60 Dallas residents (demographically balanced with respect to age and education) who drove a test vehicle as they approached DMSs with one of the above two character heights. Study administrators recorded the distance from the sign at which the participant could correctly read a three -character word. Data were recorded for three trials on each of the two character heights for each participant. Data were collected during daylight (sun overhead) and nighttime conditions. The 85th percentile legibility distances for each character height were used to estimate available viewing times under various approach speeds. These available viewing times dictate the units of information that can then be presented on a DMS of a particular character size. Based on the results of the analysis, researchers recommend that the City of Dallas continue to utilize 12-in. characters for DMSs on their arterial roadways. Even then, the amount of • information that is presented on the DMS should be limited to 3 units of information or less under nighttime viewing conditions. Agencies should consult other references, as documented A-19 within this report, regarding proper message design principles, appropriate abbreviations to use, • etc., prior to designing and implementing an arterial street DMS system. USDOT (2003). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration. Available at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ Abstract: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets and highways. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F. Although the MUTCD is routinely updated to include amendments that clarify new standards and incorporate technical advances, it has been more than 20 years since the manual was entirely rewritten, and the most recent edition was published in 1988. The new MUTCD is published in 3-ring binders for easy updating, on CD-ROM, and on the Internet. Redesigned text format will help users identify STANDARDS -- "shall" conditions; GUIDANCE -- "should" conditions; OPTIONS -- "may" conditions; and SUPPORT -- descriptive and/or general information for designing, placing, and applying traffic control devices. Measurements are presented in both metric and English units. USSC. (2003). United States Sign Council best practices standards for on -premise signs. Available at: http://www.ussc.org/publications.html • Abstract: A research -based approach to sign size, legibility, and height. Amply illustrated with tables, charts, and mathematical formulae designed to facilitate the calculation of sign letter height and copy area, negative space, overall sign size, and sign height as functions of the speed of travel utilizing the application of such factors as message size, message scan time, viewer reaction time and distance, and copy area; all presented in easy to understand language and simple tables or formulas. Van Houten, R. and Malenfant, J.E.L. (2002). Evaluation of changeable message signs (CMS) on I-4 at exits 30a and 30b to assign ramp traffic and at Princeton St. to sign for cultural events. Florida Department of Transportation Final Report. 34 pgs. Abstract: Florida Department of Transportation performed an experimental analysis of a series of changeable message signs functioning as freeway guide signs to assign traffic to Universal Theme Park via one of two eastbound exits based on traffic congestion at the first of the two exits. An examination of crashes along the entire route indicated a statistically significant increase in crashes at the first eastbound exit following the actuation of the system. Behavioral analysis scored from videotapes of driver behavior at the first eastbound exit, revealed that the reassignment of the theme park exit was associated with an increase in the percentage of motor • vehicle conflicts such as the percentage of vehicles cutting across the exit gore and the percentage of motorists making unsafe lane changes in the immediate vicinity of the exit. A human factors analysis revealed that the method used for switching the designated or active A-20 theme park exit on the series of changeable message signs led to the presentation of conflicting • messages to some motorists. The second experiment evaluated the use of a phased method of switching the designated theme park exit to eliminate the delivery of conflicting messages. The new method for switching the designated theme park exit was not associated with an increase in motorists cutting across the exit gore or unsafe lane changes. Based on the results obtained in the second experiment, it is recommended that the system used to assign the active exit based on traffic congestion be added to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A third experiment evaluated the use of changeable message signs to provide information on cultural events in the Orlando area at a single exit (eastbound and westbound). These signs were not associated with an increase in crashes. It is also recommended that this use for changeable message signs be added to the MUTCD Wachtel, J. (1981). Electronic advertising along highways --concern for traffic safety. Public Roads, 45(1), pgs. 1-5. Abstract: Developments in electronics, computers, and communications are being applied to traffic signs. One of the most advanced developments is the lamp matrix system, which is one form of a commercial electronic variable message sign (CEVMS). Although a 1978 amendment to the Highway Beautification Act legitimized commercial signage using the latest technology, earlier federal laws still in force prohibited signs illuminated by flashing, intermittent, or moving light or signs that move or have animated or moving parts. The Federal Highway Administration • through research and field observations demonstrated that CEVMS's have the potential for animation and for flashing, moving, and intermittent message presentation, and some operating signs already display these characteristics. In addition a correlation was established between roadside advertising and traffic accidents. Wachtel, J., and Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and environmental design consideration in the use of commercial electronic variable -message signage. Federal Highway Administration Final Report: FHWA-RD-80-051, 101pgs. Abstract: This study reviews existing reported research and experience regarding use of commercial electronic variable -message signs (CEVMS), and evaluates research findings and methods in terms of implications for highway safety and environmental design. Aspects of CEVMS design and use that are capable of adversely affecting highway safety and/or environmental quality are identified and discussed in terms of the adequacy of existing research and experience to permit formulation of quantified standards for safe and environmentally compatible use. This report notes, with illustrations, the principal forms of variable -message signage developed for official traffic control and informational use, and the major forms of variable -message signage utilizing electronic processes or remote control for display of commercial advertising and public service information in roadside sites. Studies of highway safety aspects of outdoor advertising, which are based on analysis of accident data, are evaluated and reasons for apparent conflicts of their findings are discussed. Studies of highway safety aspects of outdoor advertising generally and • CEVMS specifically based on human factors research and dealing with distraction and attentional demands of driving tasks are discussed in relation to issues involved in the A-21 • development of standards. Wallace, B. (2003a). Driver distraction by advertising: genuine risk or urban myth? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 156, Issue ME3 Pgs. 185 —190. Available at: http://cogprints.org/3307/01/driverdistractionarticle.pdf Abstract: Drivers operate in an increasingly complex visual environment, and yet there has been little recent research on the effects this might have on driving ability and accident rates. This paper is based on research carried out for the Scottish Executive's Central Research Unit on the subject of external -to -vehicle driver distraction. A literature review/meta-analysis was carried out with a view to answering the following questions: is there a serious risk to safe driving caused by features in the external environment, and if there is, what can be done about it? Review of the existing literature suggests that, although the subject is under -researched, there is evidence that in some cases over complex visual fields can distract drivers and that it is unlikely that existing guidelines and legislation adequately regulate this. Theoretical explanations for the phenomenon are offered and areas for future research highlighted. Wallace, B. (2003b). External -to -vehicle driver distraction. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit Report. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/finance/evdd-00.asp Abstract: This report presents the findings of a literature review of all available literature published in English since 1945 on the subject of external -to -vehicle driver distraction. The report as carried out by Human Factors Analysts Ltd. (HFAL) on behalf of the Scottish Executive between December 2002 and March 2003. The research consisted of three main elements. First, a general review of the literature pertaining to driver distraction. Second, a review of literature specifically concentrating on external -to -vehicle distraction. And finally, a review of literature pertaining to billboards and signs as an external distracter, in an attempt to discover whether there is evidence that billboards and signs are a contributory factor to road accidents. Walton, J.R., Barrett, M.L., and Crabtree, J.D. (2001). Management and effective use of changeable message signs. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, KTC-01-14/SPR233-00-lF, Final Report. 51 pgs. Abstract: Changeable message signs (CMSs) are used to communicate accurate, timely, and pertinent information to travelers on Kentucky's roadways. This information helps travelers avoid hazards or delays and respond properly to changing roadway conditions. In an ideal environment, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) would be able to allocate CMSs to various areas of the state based upon changing needs. The location of each sign would be monitored, and the message could be controlled and checked remotely. Currently these capabilities do not exist. is KYTC has four different types of portable CMSs in use throughout the state. Each type has different internal and external interfaces, and each requires different replacement parts. Also, there is no policy or guidelines in place for the use of these signs. The decision on how and when A-22 the CMSs are used is made at the district level on a case -by -case basis. This research effort • includes an evaluation of Kentucky's current inventory and usage of CMSs, identification of key issues associated with the signs, and identification of state and regional policies on the management and use of CMSs. Recommended guidelines for the management and use of CMSs are included in this report. Yager, D., Aquilante, K., and Plass, R. (1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38, pgs. 2527-2531. Abstract: Compared reading speed in 46 normally sighted high school and optometry students with two fonts, Dutch (serif) and Swiss (sans serif). Text was displayed on a computer monitor, white letters on black, with the RSVP method. Luminance of the letters was either 146.0 or 0.146 cd/m2. Lower-case x-height of the fonts was approximately 5.5 times as large as letter acuity. At the high luminance, there was no difference between reading rates. There was a significant advantage for the Swiss font at the low luminance. The acuity reserve for Swiss was higher than for Dutch at the low luminance, which may account for the difference in reading speeds. Young, S. (2004). Visibility achieved by outdoor advertising. Perception Research Services Summary Report. Available at: http://www.prsresearch.com/articles/visibility_achieved by_outdoor ad.htm • Abstract: Perception Research Services of Fort Lee, NJ, implemented a pilot study of attention to outdoor advertising, as documented via the use of PRS ShopperVision eyeglasses, i.e., the recording of passengers' seeing experience while traveling in an automobile on a high speed interstate highway. Fifty licensed drivers were interviewed (25 men and 25 women). All were between the ages of 18 and 70, with one-third 18 to 34, one-third 35 to 49, and one-third 50 to 70. Each participant was in an automobile (wearing PRS ShopperVision eye glasses) for a 30-minute highway drive. The drive took place in northern New Jersey along Interstates 95 and 80. Twenty- eight (28) boards were posted along these highways. 74 percent of boards in the rider's field of view were noted and 48 percent of the boards in the rider's field of view were read. Zwahlen, H.T., Sunkara, M., and Schnell, T. (1995). Review of legibility relationships within the context of textual information presentation. Transportation Research Record, No. 1485, pgs. 61-70. Abstract: An extended review of the relevant legibility literature was conducted to provide normalized legibility performance data for a comparison and consolidation of past legibility research. The data were normalized by expressing the legibility performance in terms of visual angle subtended by the character height. The data revealed large variations in visibility performance among the reviewed studies, despite similar or even identical experimental treatments. The normalized data • were grouped into sets, relating the visual angle to the width -to -height ratio W/H, the intercharacter spacing -to -height ratio S/H, and the stroke width -to -height ratio SW/H, for both A-23 negative and positive contrast. Second -order polynomial least -squares functions were established • to obtain a proposed and tentative functional relationship between the visual angle and W/H, S/H, and SW/H. As expected the data indicated that positive -contrast characters generally require smaller stroke widths than negative -contrast characters and that more widely spaced characters show an increased legibility over closely spaced characters. The present investigation provides display designers with proposed and analytical functional relationships between legibility performance (visual angle) and typographical properties. • A-24 UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 21 1 Radcliffe Street Bristol, PA 19007-5013 (215) 785-1922 FAX (215) 788-8395 www.ussc.org MEMBER RESOURCE FOLIO / RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY A Research Project of The UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION by Albert M. Tantala, Sr., P.E. Peter J. Tantala, P.E. Michael W. Tantala, Ph.D. Candidate of TANTALA ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4903 Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19124-2693 T: 215.289.4600 - F:215.288.1885 - E: mail@tantala.com http://www.tantala.com Recommended citation: Tantala, A. et al., "Traffic Safety Study: An examination of the relationship between signs and traffic safety", Tantala Associates, Consulting Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Funded by the United States Sign Council Foundation, November 2003. © 2003 United States Sign Council Foundation. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION This research study, which examines the relationship between roadside signs and traffic safety, was published by the United States Sign Council Foundation as part of the its on -going effort to provide a verifiable body of knowledge concerning sign usage within the built environment. For further information concerning the United States Sign Council Foundation and its educational, research and public awareness activities, call, write, fax or e-mail The United States Sign Council Foundation 211 Radcliffe Street, Bristol, Pennsylvania 19007-5013 T: 215-785-1922 - F: 215-788-8395 — E: info@ussc.org http://www.ussc.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between roadside signs and traffic safety. This study was funded by a grant from the United States Sign Council Foundation (USSCF) as part of the Council's on- going effort to provide a verifiable body of knowledge concerning sign usage within the built environment. The first part of this study establishes statistical correlation coefficients between roadside signs and accidents along the New Jersey Turnpike. This study considers various situations, with and without interchange bias. The results are analyzed for a variety of commonly accepted scenarios relating accident density to sign -density (the number of signs), to Viewer Reaction Distance (how far from a sign the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign), and to sign proximity (how far the accident is from the nearest sign). The second part of this study examines the incidence of traffic accidents at a specific, recently installed sign and for a period of time both before and after the installation of the sign. The results of this study indicate the following: Correlation coefficients are statistical measures of the "association" between two sets of data, such as signs and traffic accidents. The correlation coefficients developed in this study consistently confirm, for more than four years of data (about 23,000 accidents), that the coefficient values are generally close to zero (between -0.098 to +0.219). The 1 correlation coefficients establish that no statistical relationship between signs and accidents exists. These correlation coefficients also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • Turnpike interchanges have the potential to unfairly bias the results because drivers undertake additional tasks, such as lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, and negotiating directions. If the data near Turnpike interchanges is excluded, then the correlation coefficients converge even more closely to zero (between -0.026 to +0.194). These data reinforces the premise that no statistical relationship between signs and accidents exists. The data also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • After the installation of a specific, roadside sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, the traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or week decreased and increased. These measures indicate no statistically significant changes in accident occurrences after the installation of another roadside sign at this busy intersection. The results of this study strongly conclude that roadside signs have no statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. Traffic accidents may be much more likely attributable to, and strongly correlated with, other factors, such as driver fatigue, poor road conditions, driver abilities, traffic volume, legitimate distractions, inter alia. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................... 3 LISTOF FIGURES........................................................................................ 5 LISTOF TABLES......................................................................................... 8 1. GENERAL COMMENTS....................................................................... 9 2. OBJECTIVE..........................................................................................10 3. SIGN -ACCIDENT CORRELATION...................................................11 A. Methodology......................................................................................11 (1) Road............................................................................................11 (2) Signs............................................................................................13 (3) Traffic Accidents.........................................................................19 B. Analysis..............................................................................................20 (1) Accident Density and Sign Density ................................................ 21 (2) Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) ............... 29 (3) Number of Accidents and Proximity to Signs ................................ 30 C. Results................................................................................................ 32 4. SPATIAL COMPARISON................................................................ 37 A. Methodology...................................................................................37 (1) Location....................................................................................... 37 (2) Sign............................................................................................. 39 (3) Traffic Accidents ............................................... 39 .......................... 3 B. Analysis..............................................................................................41 (1) Accidents -per -Volume (APV) Ratios.........................................42 (2) Histogram Comparison............................................................... 43 C. Results................................................................................................ 46 5. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................48 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................. 50 REFERENCES............................................................................................. 52 APPENDICES.............................................................................................. 54 APPENDIX A.1: Sign Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike .................... 55 APPENDIX A.2: Comparison of Sign Data with Number of Accidents for 1998-2001................................................................................................. 58 APPENDIX A.3: Accident and Sign Density Figures ............................. 65 APPENDIX A.4: Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports for the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection................................................................................................ 77 M LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. New Jersey Turnpike........................:.......................................:..12 Figure 2. Typical Signs along the New Jersey Turnpike .............................15 Figure 3. Sign -Location Plan.......................................................................17 Figure 4. Typical Sign -Location Data.........................................................18 Figure5. Sign Density................................................................................. 23 Figure 6. Comparison of Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker. 24 Figure 7. Aggregate Accident Density for 1998-2001................................ 25 Figure 8. Visual Interpretations of Correlation Coefficients ....................... 27 Figure 9. Actual Correlation Coefficients for Various Relations ................ 28 Figure 10. Calculated Correlation coefficients with Interchange Bias ....... 35 Figure 11. Calculated Correlation coefficients without Interchange Bias.. 36 Figure 12. Aerial Photograph of Sign at the Lincoln Highway and WoodbourneRoad................................................................................. 38 Figure 13. Photographs of Sign at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road....................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14. Composite Weekly Histogram of Woodbourne Road and the Lincoln Highway Intersection Accidents in 2001-2002 ........................ 44 Figure 15. Weekly Histogram of (A) Woodbourne Road and (B) the Lincoln Highway Intersection Accidents in 2001-2002 ........................ 45 5 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Al-1. Sample of Survey Data of Sign on New Jersey Turnpike ...... 56 Figure Al-2. Survey Data of Signs on New Jersey Turnpike ...................... 57 Figure A2-1. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias............................................................................ 59 Figure A2-2. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias........................................................... 60 Figure A2-3. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias ....................................................... 61 Figure A2-4. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias....................................................................... 62 Figure A2-5. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias ...................................................... 63 Figure A2-6. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias .................................................. 64 Figure A3-1. Comparison of 1998-2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by MileMarker........................................................................................... 66 Figure A3-2. Aggregate Accident Densities (1998-2001) .......................... 67 Figure A3-3. Sign Density........................................................................... 68 Figure A3-4. Comparison of 1998 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker................................................................................................... 69 Figure A3-5. Accident Density for 1998..................................................... 70 0 LIST OF FIGURES continued Figure A3-6. Comparison of 1999 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker.................................................................................................... 71 Figure A3-7. Accident Density for 1999..................................................... 72 Figure A3-8. Comparison of 2000 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker................................................................................................... 73 Figure A3-9. Accident Density for 2000..................................................... 74 Figure A3-10. Comparison of 2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker................................................................................................... 75 Figure A3-11. Accident Density for 2001................................................... 76 Figure A4-1. 2001 and 2002 Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection............................................................................................ 78 W LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Number of Traffic Accidents on the New Jersey Turnpike ..........19 Table 2. Correlation Coefficient Results ..................................................... 26 Table 3. Traffic Accidents at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection............................................................................................ 41 Table 4. Accidents, Volume and APV at Woodbourne Road Intersection. 42 Table 5. Spatial Comparison Results.......................................................... 46 1. GENERAL COMMENTS The United States has millions of miles of roads, highways, streets, and other traveled ways used for the navigation of motor vehicles. Virtually all of these roads have some type of signage associated with them, whether the signs are directional, informational, regulatory, identifying, advertising, or other types. Signs are necessary in order to promote efficient navigation, to disseminate vital wayfinding or safety information, to identify locations or destinations, to regulate traffic, to advertise, etc. For these functions, signs and roads are inseparable. Unfortunately, traffic accidents on roads also occur in the millions annually. Accidents may be attributable to many factors, including poor road conditions, driver ability, traffic volume, distractions, inter alia. Although advertising signs account for only a small percentage of all signs along roads, advertising signs are often viewed as the chief cause of distraction -related accidents. For this reason, advertising signs are heavily regulated, even though the relationship between signs and traffic safety has not been comprehensively established. This study examines the relationship between signs and traffic safety, and evaluates the correlation between signs and accidents for particular roads and conditions. 6 2. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between roadside signs and traffic safety. The study examines two situations which involve signs and traffic. In„the first ,situation, a highway with roadside signs is selected and studied, including analysis of sign location, road conditions, traffic -accident locations, inter alia, for the purpose of determining if traffic accidents are more prevalent at or near existing signs. This part of the study is called the Sign -Accident Correlation part. Statistical correlation coefficients are used as the basis for comparison of the results. In the second„ situation, the location of a recently installed sign is identified, and the incidence of traffic accidents near the sign is examined, for a time period both before and after the installation of the sign, for the purpose of establishing whether traffic accidents occurred more frequently in the presence of the sign. This part of the study is called the Spatial Comparison part. 10 3. SIGN -ACCIDENT CORRELATION The purpose of the Sign -Accident Correlation part of the study is to examine whether traffic accidents occur more frequently at or near signs on a specific roadway. Essentially, the Sign -Accident Correlation is a comparison of the location of signs and the location of accidents. These two sets of data are quantitatively compared using correlation coefficients. A. Methodology The procedure employed in this study involves collecting accident information for a given road, analyzing and assembling the information into useful data, identifying where advertising signs are located along the road, statistically analyzing the data by comparing the sign locations and the accident locations, and calculating correlation coefficients for these sets of data. (1) Road The roadway examined in this part of the study is the New Jersey Turnpike. The New Jersey Turnpike (Turnpike) was selected over other thoroughfares, for many reasons conducive to the study. The Turnpike, shown in Figure 1, is generally oriented northbound-southbound, is a limited -access highway servicing the entire state of New Jersey and through traffic, is operated by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, and is proximate 11 ZI axrdtunZ Xosjof moN • i ain5i3 sueenp s6wy1 )POA MeN s)Pa8 4BI49.1 uo}dwey:poN to several metropolitan areas, including New York City and Newark at its northern end, the state capital of Trenton near its central- portion, and Philadelphia near its southern portion. The Turnpike is 113.8 miles long, and extends from the George Washington Bridge (New York State) at its north terminus, to State Route 130 near the Delaware Memorial Bridge (State of Delaware) at its south terminus (mile marker 0). The Turnpike also includes a 6.55-mile spur to its west which allows traffic to and from the Pennsylvania Turnpike. This study does not include the spur portion of the Turnpike. The Turnpike is a limited -access, toll highway, with 18 entrances/exits (interchanges) along its length; the average distance between interchanges is approximately five miles. Most of the road is divided, with five lanes of traffic in each direction; the northern portion of the highway is further divided, with traffic in each direction segregated into "cars only" and "car and truck" traffic lanes. The posted speed limit along the entire Turnpike is 65 miles per hour. Signage along the Turnpike is strictly regulated, and is subject to local permitting procedures, in addition to state and Turnpike Authority approval. (2) Signs Several types of signs exist along the Turnpike, including advertising signs, directional signs, informational signs, emergency signs, markers, inter alia. Figure 2 shows typical signs along the Turnpike. This study examines 13 only advertising signs, and only those signs which are intended to principally advertise to traffic on the Turnpike. The studied signs are graphically located in Figure 3 (each solid dot represents a sign); the signs are individually identified in Appendix A.1, and include both accessory (on -premise) and non -accessory (off -premise) signs. All the signs are freestanding structures, and almost all are double-faced, advertising to northbound and southbound traffic. Almost all the signs are either internally or externally illuminated; only a few are not illuminated. The number of studied signs is 123: 72 located to the east side of the Turnpike and 51 to the west side of the Turnpike. Twenty-one signs are accessory, 102 are non -accessory, and one sign had its head removed and was temporarily only a sign upright. The following assumptions are made concerning the signs. Because approximately 94% of the signs (116 of the 123) advertise to both northbound and southbound traffic, or have faces generally perpendicular to the traffic lanes, this study assumes that each of the studied signs has the potential to impact traffic safety on both northbound and southbound traffic within the view (or viewer -reaction) distance of the signs. 14 Figure 2. Typical Signs along the New Jersey Turnpike 15 Because approximately 92% of the signs (113 of the 123) are illuminated, this study assumes that all signs are illuminated and visible at all times. This study also assumes that each of the studied signs existed during the years for which traffic accidents were examined. The location of the signs was determined from field -investigation, by identifying the mile marker location (one tenth mile) of each sign; these locations are graphically located in Figure 3, the Sign -Location Plan. The Sign -Location Plan shows that the northern portion of the Turnpike has the highest density of signs, that the central portion has a low to moderate sign density, and that the extreme southern portion has very few signs. Straight-line diagrams, aerial photographs, GIS information, and field - data are used to analyze the location and characteristics of each sign. Figure 4 is a typical data sheet. Appendix A.1 provides detailed survey information. 16 Lehigh Barks Warren Hunterdon Sussex Somerset Mercer Burlington Atlantic Sign -Location Plan Monmouth Kings, Queer 17 Sign ID: 14 Milemarker: 70.35 Direction North with North: Read Use: Non -Accessory Type: Single Face Dimensions: 14' x 48' Illumination: External Copy: Fennelley Real Estate M. M (3) Traffic Accidents Currently, more than 650,000 vehicles travel the New Jersey Turnpike each day. Traffic accident records for the Turnpike are available for certain time periods. Accidents have been recorded since the Turnpike's completion in 1951 by either the New Jersey Turnpike Authority or the New Jersey State Police. However, only accident data for the past ten years is readily obtainable or computerized. Detailed analysis and assembly of the data indicates that the only years for which r9lal�1e accident data is available, are 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Data for 2002 are not available. The total number of accidents for each of these years is listed in Table 1. In all, 22,971 accidents were included in this study. Only reported accidents are part of the study, and all data was obtained from either the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the New Jersey State Police, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Table 1. Number of Traffic Accidents on the New Jersey Turnpike Year Number of Accidents 1998 5,122 2000 6,204 2001 6,297 Total 22,971 19 For each year, the accident data is segregated by mile marker (one tenth mile), and listed by the number of accidents which occurred at or near each mile marker. Listing the data in this fashion allows a parallel tabulation of sign -location by mile marker, and the subsequent comparison of these parallel sets of data. B. Analysis As stated, both the accident data and the sign locations are assembled, or listed, by mile marker, in order to form a basis for their comparison. Three comparisons of these variables are completed, including a comparison of - Accident -Density and Sign -Density, - Accident -Density and Viewer Reaction Distance, and Accident -Density and Proximity to Signs. The above three comparisons are made for each of the four, examined years, and for the aggregate of the four years. A quantitative measure of how well the data compared is obtained by using a statistical correlation coefficient. The results of the correlation coefficient analysis and a discussion of correlation coefficients are in the Results section of this study. This study also examines a subset of traffic -accident data to assess its relationship to signage. Correlation coefficients are calculated with the same accident data, however excluding those accidents and signs near 20 Turnpike interchanges (entrances/exits) within one mile (1/2 mile on each side of an interchange). Accident data near Turnpike interchanges have the potential to bias the results, because drivers undertake additional tasks such as lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, negotiating directions, attention to others undertaking additional tasks, inter alia. These added factors could bias and dilute a study of accident data when compared to typical conditions of straight driving without sources of potential distraction. (1) Accident Density and Sign Density This study defines accident density as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). The terms number of accidents and accident density are used interchangeably. The sign density, S° , is defined as the number of signs per mile, and is determined using a moving average of the number of signs at each mile marker with a "window" size of one mile, and may be expressed by: Q S° _ L[s; Im-0.5 <— s; <— m+0.5], m = 0, 0.I,L , M i=1 where s; is the ith sign's mile marker location, and Q is the number of signs observed along M, which is the total length of the Turnpike in miles. [The vertical line after s; in the above equation means "given that", and is not an absolute value symbol.] Individual locations of certain signs are shown in Appendix A.1 of this study (with aerials, photographs, diagrams and sign characteristics). 21 The sign density, that is, the average number of signs per mile, varies along the length of the Turnpike, and is shown graphically in Figure 5. The sign density varies from 0 to 9 signs per mile. If a noticeable correlation between signage and accidents exists, then we would expect a significantly larger number of accidents in areas with relatively high sign densities. Histograms illustrating the differences in sign densities and accidents along the Turnpike for data from 1998 to 2001 are shown in Figure 6. Figures 5 and 7 show similar data in the form of a mapped, density plot for sign and accident data along the Turnpike between 1998 and 2001. Comparisons of other histograms and density plots illustrating the differences in sign densities accident along the Turnpike for accidents representing each individual year between 1998 and 2001 are shown in Appendix A.3. Our basis for evaluating the relationship between sign locations and accident locations is the correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient (p) between sign density, S° , and accident density, A', may be calculated using: �(AD-A°)(SD -S°) p = M ,m = 0, 0.1,L,M I(AD-A°)21(SD -SD)2 m m 22 Monroe Carbon Northampton Lehigh Beri(s Bucks Montgomery Chester Delaware Sussex Warren Morris Hunterdon % Somerset / Camden New C tie A Gloucester Salem /mberi\and Mercer j, 1✓ Burlington Atlantic Figure 5. Sign Density Bergen Essex �� 'chmond (�uee� N Monmouth A m a� o N 0 0 U0 Ocean 0 Sign high density Sign = O low 23 1000 U) c W 800 c� Q ° 600 a� E Z 400 •• 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker i y U) 0) 5 O 4 E 3 Z W: I Sign Distribution 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure 6. Comparison of Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 24 Monroe Carbon Northampton Lehigh Berics Bucks Montgomery Chester <` P Delaware Sussex Warren } Morris Hunterdon / Somerset / Camden New C tle , Gloucester Salem Zmbe�rland Mercer Burlington Atlantic nd Bergen Essex hr ` N York Union Kings _ --chmond ,, Queens N Monmouth n NJ, CD 0 Ocean Lo 0 Accident high density Sign = O low Figure 7. Aggregate Accident Density for 1998-2001 25 The correlation coefficients with their corresponding data are shown in Table 2 for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001, and from data plotted in Appendix A.2. These coefficients range from -0.098 to +0.219. Figure 8 shows commonly accepted interpretations of correlation coefficients and visual scatter plots to emphasis what various correlation coefficients might represent (Ang, 1975). To provide another sense of the value of correlation coefficients, Figure 9 shows historically observed correlation coefficients for a variety of other relationships. The Correlation coefficients excluding interchange bias are shown with their corresponding data in Table 2 for thi between 1998 and 2001, and are calcula A.2. Table 2. Correlation C Comparison 1998 1 Accident Density and Sign +0.188 +0. Density without interchange bias +0.199 +0. Accident Density and Viewer +0.180 +0. Reaction Distance ou` rni�c Accident Density and -0.076 -0. Proximity to Sign without interchange bias -0.022 -0. Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges Correlation Coefficient Scale +1.0 Visual Representation of Data with specific correlation +0.95 n — 0 exactly • ram' • b •� • �• f Correlation Coefficients 27 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association +0.3 no association 0 negative 0 correlations have similar ranges -to:. Correlation Coefficient Scale +1.0 Measured Correlation Values — +0.91 Bonuses vs. Annual Salary Goldman Sachs, 2000 Rainfall in 30 minutes vs. Daily Rainfall Sandham et al, 1997 — +0.40 Years of education vs. Annual Salary Schaeffer et al, 2002 +0.37 Major League Baseball Player's RBI in a year vs. RBI of previous year Schall et al, 2001 1: Academic Performance Days absent vs. Final Grade Various Sources Figure 9. Actual Correlation Coefficients for Various Relations (2) Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) Accident density, A,D , was previously defined as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) is a measure of the distance in which a driver has time to "notice" or react to a sign which is in the driver's field of vision. The VRD is the distance to a sign in which the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign. Analogously, Viewer Reaction Time (VRT) is the time a driver is within the "influence" of a sign. Reasonable values for VRD were previously determined in previous studies (USSC, reference), and are a function of the driver's speed. The posted speed limit on the Turnpike is 65 mph; this approximately corresponds with a VRD of approximately 0.2 miles and a VRT of 10 seconds. This study uses a binary index, V„,' , to represent if a given mile marker is within the VRD, and is represented as 1 d <_ VRD V,n� _ m , m = 0, 0.1,L , M 0 otherwise where dis the distance to the nearest sign location for mth mile marker, VRD is 0.2 (the viewer reaction distance corresponding to a 10 second VRT at the 65 mph on the Turnpike), and M is the total length of the Turnpike in miles. The index dis defined as Id,11 = min Os1—ml,i = 0,1,L ,Q}), m = 0, 0.1,L , M} 29 where s; is the ith sign's mile marker location and Q is the number of signs observed. The correlation coefficient between accident density, A', and viewer reaction distance, VVRD' is calculated similar to that which was previously defined. These correlation coefficients are shown with their corresponding data in Table 2, for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001, and is calculated from data plotted in Appendix A.2. Correlation coefficients excluding interchange bias are also shown with their corresponding data in Table 2 for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001. Correlation coefficients are determined for data that are within 0.2 miles of the nearest sign, based on the previous discussion of Viewer Reaction Distance. If a noticeable correlation exists between signage and accidents, then we would expect significant changes in the number of accidents occurring 0 to 0.2 miles from any sign. (3) Number of Accidents and Proximity to Signs Accident density, A,D , was previously defined as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). An index, P,,, , is used to 30 represent proximity to signage, and is simply the distance from a individual mile marker to the nearest sign. f„ may be expressed by: JP, = Id, — ml , m = 0, 0.19 L , M} where dis the distance to the nearest sign location for mth mile marker and M is the total length of the Turnpike in miles. The correlation coefficients between sign proximity indices, P , and accident density, A° , are similar to that previously defined. Table 2 shows these correlation coefficients with their corresponding data for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001. These correlation coefficients are calculated using data which is plotted in Appendix A.2. Table 2 shows correlation coefficients excluding interchange bias with their corresponding data for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001. If a noticeable correlation exists between signs and accidents, then we would expect more accidents at locations which are closer to signs. Correlation coefficients are determined for data that are within 0.4 miles of the nearest sign. Based on previous discussion of Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD), 0.4 miles is twice the 0.2 mile VRD value. If a noticeable correlation exists between signs and accidents, then .we would expect significant changes in the number of accidents between the 0 and 0.2 mile range and the 0.2 and 0.4 mile range, and the correlation coefficient would be large (close to ±1.00). However, these correlation coefficients are actually close to zero, indicating almost statistical independence, or no 31 relationship or tendency for signs to influence traffic accidents. Further, when interchange bias is excluded, these correlation coefficients move closer to zero, again strongly suggesting no causal relationship. C. Results Our results seek to evaluate if road signs have an influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. As discussed, a useful measure of compliance ("association") between two sets of data (signs and traffic accidents) is the correlation coefficient. If the variables "tend" to go up and down together, then the correlation coefficient will be positive. If the variables "tend" to go up and down in opposition with each other, the correlation coefficient will be negative. By definition, a correlation coefficient can be no larger than +1, and can be no smaller than -1. Values at or near +1 indicate a perfect one- to-one correlation, and values at or near -1 indicating perfect inverse correlation. Values at or near zero indicate statistical independence of one set of data with respect to the other. Statistically, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 or smaller is considered to indicate "weak" correlations, at best, and does not indicate much difference from correlation coefficients of zero. It is important to note that correlation is not necessarily causation, even though it may be an indicator. 32 Table 2 lists the correlation coefficients obtained, for the relationships examined in this study, namely: • Accident Density and Sign Density, • Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance, and • Accident Density and Proximity to Sign. As seen in Table 2 and Figure 10, the correlation coefficients for accident density. and sign density are. all statistically low, with coefficients ranging from +0.140 to +0.209. When signs and accidents within one-half mile of interchanges are excluded, almost all of the coefficients are lower, and range from +0.077 to +0.199. Each of these coefficients indicates zero to extremely weak correlation between the locations of signs and the locations of accidents. As shown in Figure 11 when interchange bias is excluded, the .coefficients are generally closer to zero, further suggesting that no statistical or causal relationship between sign density and accident density exists. The correlation coefficients results for accident density and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) vary between +0:129 and +0.220. These coefficients are low, are close to zero, and correspondingly indicate less than marginal or no correlation between signs and accidents. Again, the coefficients are lower with the exclusion of interchange bias, further suggesting a lack of relationship or dependence between signs and accidents. 33 Each of the correlation coefficients for accident density and proximity to the sign is negative, indicating that a slight inverse correlation exists regarding sign locations relative to the location of accidents. In other words, the accident rate was higher at locations farther from the nearest sign, but only slightly. These negative coefficients are also close to zero, and we must, therefore, conclude statistical independence. Also of note is the fact that the correlation coefficients are relatively consistent from year to year within each category. No large increases or decreases in the coefficients exist from 37Par *^ �,AQr positively influences the confidence in the si TMio n^noiotnnn�� Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association +0.3 no association 0 negative correlations have similar ranges Correlation Coefficient Scale +1.0 X Measured Correlation Values +0.219 Accident Density vs. Viewer Reaction Distance +0.209 Accident Density vs. Sign Density -0.077 Accident Density vs. Proximity to Sign Figure 10. Calculated Correlation coefficients with Interchange Bias 35 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association +0.3 no association 0 negative 0 ` correlations have similar rangesIr Correlation Coefficient Scale MR U Measured Correlation Values Correlation Coefficients are without interchange bias +0.194 Accident Density vs. Viewer Reaction Distance +0.193 Accident Density vs. Sign Density -0.026 Accident Density vs. Proximity to Sign Figure 11. Calculated Correlation coefficients without Interchange Bias 36 4. SPATIAL COMPARISON A. Methodology The purpose of this Spatial Comparison part of this study is to examine the incidence of traffic accidents at an intersection at a specific, recently installed sign and for an equal period of time before and after the installation of the sign, and to determine if traffic accidents occurred more frequently or less frequently with the presence of the sign. Sign data are statistically compared using histograms and average accident -per -volume (APV) ratios for one year before the sign was installed and for one year after the sign was installed. It should be emphasized that there were no other, substantial changes at the intersection where this selected sign is located, other than the installation of the selected sign, a slight increase in traffic volume, and the winter snowfall. (1) Location The selected sign is near the Oxford Valley Mall in Middletown Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The sign is at the northeast corner of the Lincoln Highway (U.S. Business Route 1) and Woodbourne Road. The intersection is controlled by a traffic light. Figure 12 shows the area, the intersection, and the sign. The sign was installed on or about January 28, 2002. 37 (2) Sign The selected sign is a free-standing, double -face, accessory (on - premise) structure with two uprights. Each sign face is rectangular, measures 6 feet high by 15 feet wide, and has a sign -face area of 90 square feet. The top of the sign is approximately 25 feet above the grade adjacent to the sign. The sign faces are internally illuminated and include an electronic -message -panel display. The sign faces are oriented approximately perpendicular to the Lincoln Highway, and are intended to principally advertise to traffic on the Lincoln Highway, and secondarily advertise to traffic on Woodbourne Road. Figure 13 shows photographs of the sign. The findings at this location are particularly relevant because of the dynamic nature of the sign itself which, as noted, contains a high -contrast electronic -message -panel. Animation of this feature was observed to include varied aspects of simulated movement including scrolling, wipe -on, wipe -off, blending, and rapid copy variations involving different messages in a constantly changing mode of operation. (3) Traffic Accidents At the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road intersection, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) recorded an average, daily traffic -count of 18,500 vehicles in 2001 and 20,000 vehicles in 2002. Data were obtained from police accident reports which were provided by PennDOT for a period of one year before, and one year after, the sign installation at this intersection. 39 Figure 13. Photographs of Sign at the Ro; At this intersection, 68 accidents occurred in 2001, which is prior to the installation of the sign, and 60 accidents occurred after the sign installation, which approximately represents a one in a hundred thousand chance of an accident at this intersection based on average traffic volumes. The number of accidents for this part of the study is listed in Table 3 and compiled in Appendix A.2. Table 3. Traffic Accidents at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection Prior to Sign After Sign Totals (before 28Jan02) (after 28Jan02) the Lincoln Highway 35 33 68 Woodbourne Road 33 27 60 Totals 68 60 128 B. Analysis The accident data assembled for this part of the study are based on the proximity to the sign and on when the accident occurred. To examine how this one specific intersection is impacted by the introduction of a sign, comparisons were made of • changes in traffic accidents -per -volume (APV) ratios, and • histograms of the accident data on a temporal basis. 41 (1) Accidents -per -Volume (APV) Ratios A quantitative measure of comparing traffic safety is to use accidents - per -volume (APV) ratios. The APV ratio is calculated by APV _ Number of accidents Annual Traffic Volume Table 4 summarizes accidents, annual traffic volumes and APV ratios for the sign at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road intersection for 2001 and 2002. The number of accidents decreased 11.8% from 2001 to 2002; the traffic volume also increased by 5.3%. If we compared the APV ratios, then the accident rate decreased by 16% after the introduction of the sign at this intersection. Table 4. Accidents, Volume and APV at Woodbourne Road Intersection Prior to Sign After Sign % (before 28Jan02) (after 28Jan02) I chanae No. of Accidents I 68 60 1 -11.8% Average Traffic Volume 1 6,935,000 7,300,000 1 +5.3% APV 0.00 Equivalent 1 in 1 (2) Histogram Comparison Using the summarized, PennDOT, accident -report data in Appendix A4, we show in Figure 14, the composite distribution of accidents before and after the installation of the sign (on or about January 28, 2002) as a weekly histogram for the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road intersection. Similar histograms for the separate roads are shown in Figures 15(A) and 15(B). A comparison of the histograms of accidents (on either a weekly or a daily basis) at the intersection in 2001 (before sign installation) and in 2002 (after sign installation), indicates no substantial change in accident patterns. The peak number of accidents on any given week decreased from 5 to 4, after the introduction of the sign at the intersection; the peak number on any given day decreased from 3 to 2. The number of accident -free days increased from 42 to 43; the number of accident -free weeks remained the same at 15. Based on the data, no significant change in accident occurrences can be attributed to the introduction of this roadside sign. It should also be noted that the later months of 2002, the year after the installation of the sign, had significantly greater snowfall. This additional snowfall could be an influencing factor of why the accident occurrence rates were not less than they already are (relative to those in 2001). This is evident because there are slightly more accidents in the winter months (generally weeks 40 to 52) of 2002 than in the rest of the year. 43 ITI 11 v 4 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 weeks prior to sign I weeks after sign sign installated ± 28Jan02 C o 0 4 CD 3 Cu v 2 N O O Q O � � N Q- E Z weeks prior to sign sign installed ± 28Jan02 weeks after sign -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 weeks prior to sign I weeks after sign sign installed ± 28Jan02 C. Results The results suggest that roadside signs in and of themselves have no influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. The most useful measures of traffic -accident occurrence at any specific location (APV, peak daily accidents, peak weekly accidents, accident free days and accident free weeks) are evaluated and compiled in Table 5. After the introduction of this roadside sign, traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) decreased, the peak number of accidents on any given day or week decreased, the number of accidents -free days increased, and the number of accident -free weeks remained the same. These measures indicate no statistically significant changes in accident occurrences after the introduction of the roadside sign at this busy intersection. Accidents Table 5. Spatial Comparison Results Prior to Sign After Sign (before 28Jan02) (after 28Jan02) .c Peak Dailv Accidents 3 2 Accident Free D 42 43 The number of accidents was relatively steady from 2001 to 2002. No large increases or decreases occurred in the values from year to year. With 46 the exception of a new sign, there were no other changes at this intersection. No new buildings, changes in lane/intersection topography, zoning or traffic - light signalization/timing were introduced. The analysis reinforces the results of the Sign -Accident Correlation part of this study, that roadside signs in and of themselves have no influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. 47 5. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study strongly conclude that roadside signs have no statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. The following are the conclusions of this study. • Correlation coefficients are statistical measures of the "association" between two sets of data, such as signs and traffic accidents. The correlation coefficients developed in this study consistently confirm, for more than four years of data (about 23,000 accidents), that the coefficient values are generally close to zero (between -0.070 and +0.220). • The correlation coefficients establish that no statistical relationship. between signs and accidents exists. These correlation coefficients also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • Turnpike interchanges have the potential to unfairly bias the results because drivers undertake additional tasks, such as lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, and negotiating directions. If the data near Turnpike interchanges is excluded, then the correlation coefficients converge even more closely to zero (between -0.030 to +0.194). • The interchange bias -free correlation coefficients further reinforce the premise that no statistical relationship between signs and accidents exists. These data also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • After the installation of the specific, roadside sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, the traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or week decreased and the number of days without accidents increased. • After the installation of the specific, roadside sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, histogram analysis indicates no statistically significant changes in accident occurrences after the installation of the roadside sign at this busy intersection. Traffic accidents may be much more likely attributable to, and strongly correlated with, other factors, such as driver fatigue, poor road conditions, driver abilities, traffic volume, legitimate distractions, inter alia. DEFINITIONS Accessory sign - A sign relating in its subject matter to the lot or tract on which it is located, or to products, accommodations, services or activities on the premises on which it is located Accident Density - the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile) along a road or highway Accidents -per -Volume (APV) Ratio - A quantitative measure of traffic safety for a specified road or portion of road, which is the ratio of the number of accidents to the annual traffic volume Correlation Coefficient — a statistical measure of the "association" between two sets of data Interchange Bias — the potential for additional tasks which drivers undertake at interchanges/intersections to contribute to the occurrence of an accident. These additional tasks may include lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, negotiating directions, attention to others undertaking additional tasks, inter alia. Limited -Access Highway - a highway especially designed for through traffic and over, from or to which owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons have no right or easement or only a limited right or easement of access, light, air, or view by reason of the fact that their property abuts on such limited access highway or for any other reason Non -accessory - A sign other than an accessory sign 6A7 DEFINITIONS continued Sign - Any privately owned permanent or temporary device, placard, painting, drawing, poster, letter, word, banner, pennant, insignia, trade flag, or representation used as or which is in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, or direction which is on a public way or on private property within public view of a public way Sign Density — the number of signs per mile marker (every tenth of a mile) along a road or highway Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) - a measure of the distance in which a driver has time to "notice" or react to a sign which is in the driver's field of vision. The VRD is the distance to a sign in which the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign. A posted speed limit of 65 mph usually corresponds to a VRD of approximately 0.2 miles. Viewer Reaction Time (VRT) — a measure of the time during which a driver is within the "influence" of a sign. A posted speed limit of 65 mph usually corresponds to a VRT of approximately 10 seconds. REFERENCES l Ang, A., W. Tang, Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1975. Federal Highway Administration, "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable -Message Signage", Report No. FHWA/RD-80/051, 1980. Garber, N. and L. Hoel, Traffic and Highway Engineering, PWS Publishing, 2nd edition (Revised Printing), 1999. Garvey, P, Thompson -Kuhn, B, & Pietrucha, M., "Sign Visibility Research and Traffic Safety", United States Sign Council, 1996. Harr, M., Reliability Based Design in Civil En ing eering, General Publishing Company, Ltd., 1987. Modarres, M., M. Kaminsky, V. Krivtsov, Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1999. Montgomery, D., G. Runger, N. Hubele, Engineering Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Weather Data for Pennsylvania, 2001 and 2002. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the New Jersey State Police, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Jersey Turnpike Accident data for 1998 to 2001 obtained from New Jersey Government Records Council under the Open Public Records Act, (ORPA), 2003. O'Connor, P., Practical Reliability Engineering, Heyden and Sons, Inc., 1981. 52 PennDOT, Bureau of Planning and Research, Transportation Planning Division in Cooperation with the FHWA, 2001 Traffic Volume Map for Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 2000 and 2001. Township of Middletown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, "Building and/or Zoning Permit" No. 20004, Issued 28Jan02. 53 APPENDICES APPENDIX A.1: Sign Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike APPENDIX A.2: Comparison of Sign Data with Number of Accidents for 1998-2001 APPENDIX A.3: Accident and Sign Density Figures APPENDIX A.4: Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports for the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection 54 APPENDIX A.1 Sign Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike Sample Information Collected Survey Data 55 Sign ID: 14 Milemarker: 70.35 Direction North with North Read o Use: Non -Accessory Type: Single Face Dimensions: 14' x 48' Illumination: External Copy: Fennelley Real Estate Twp Middn x Co X Figure A 1-1. Sample Survey Data of Sign on New Jersey Turnpike 56 Sign Milepost Route Facing Faces Sign Shape Use Dimensions 1111-Unination Owner Owner Number Page Note ID- Direction Direction DFISF V F T ANA of Face 1 0.0000 us OF v NA 14x48 Y, EA M#W9 Famous N > 3 30,2000 S SF F NA 9K12 N N N 6 44.3000 N NS OF F A 12x1e N toward Johnson's N 7 44.5000 NS OF F A 15)20 Y, bt Ecom kOp 9 '0000 S NS OF V NA 20x60 Y Interstate 'LS 11 683000 N N SF F A 902 N Sunoco 13 02.4200 3 KS OF v NA 2040 Y SoveroWn Bank Arena is 70,8000 S us OF F NA 20x80 Y. Ext vl000m Park 17 71,1500 N N SF F A 112W40 N Cusliiriw and Wakefield CD Is 71.0500 S -S OF F A 12x9 Y, bit SunD00 21 72.4000 S NS OF v NA 114*8 Y, E)d Ek" HnMw Inn 23 72.8000 S NS OF v NA 14x4$ Y, E)d Elroy Full Body Health O 2S 73.1700 S us OF v NA 14x48 Y, Ext Clear Chomel Jack Daniels 27 74.7300 N NS OF v NA 14)(A8 Y, Ext ClearChimmal 032115 29 75,0000 S NS OF v NA 14x48 Y, Ext Matrix Maire Solo O 31 752700 N NS OF v HA 14x48 Y, Ext Carol NJ Lot 33 762000 N NS OF v HA 14x48 Y, Ext CWft Apple Vacs 36 77,9000 N NS OF v NA 14m" Y, Ext MMrix ft*d CD Cn Cn 37 76.3000 N N SF F NA 1230 N Sunoco CD 39 80.9700 N NS OF v HA 14Y48 Y, Ext Moroi Row "llibrow 41 83,1000 N NS OF V NA 14*8 Y, EA Ned Media 077 Nam" 43 asiom N NS OF v NA 14*48 Y. E)d Clear Chormal 032103 suv 45 91.2000 MID N SF F NA 12)9 N Sunoco CD APPENDIX A.2 Comparison of Sign Data with Number of Accidents for 1998-2001 Sign Density and Number of Accidents Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents 58 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.2090 600 500 c m 400 U Q 0 300 n 200 E z 100 ! i 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density 1998 p = 0.1876 1999 p = 0.1398 180 160 140 120 U Q 100 0 80 60 � 40 z 20 0 160 140 120 U Q 100 0 80 60 40 z 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density Sign Density 2000 p = 0.2093 2001 p = 0.1193 N 200 c CD p 150 Q ° 100 a� � 50 z 0 y 250 c 200 U Q 150 0 100 E Z 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density Sign Density Figure A2-1. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias 59 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.2164 600 500 d 400 U Q 0 300 d 200 Z 100 0 0 1 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) 1998 p = 0.1803 1999 180 160 140 v 120 �U Q 100 0 80 60 � 40 Z 20 0 0 2000 250 c 200 d a �U Q 150 `o a5 100 E Z 50 --- 0 a- 180 160 140 v 120 U Q 100 0 80 60 E 40 E Z 20 0 p=0.1580 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) p = 0.2123 0 1 1 Distance with VRD (Miles) 2001 300 y 250 c v 200 �U Q 150 0 100 E Z 50 0 2 0 Distance with VRD (Miles) p = 0.1289 1 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) Figure A2-2. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias .f Aggregate (1998-2001) p = -0.077 s 00 500 a� 400 U Q 0 300 a� E 200 M • Z 100 iAw-a _ • 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 180 1998 p = -0.076 1999 p = -0.057 160 140 120 Q 100 0 80 60 � 40 Z 20 0 180 160 140 120 Q 100 80 60 z40 20 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 2000 p = -0.098 2001 p = -0.013 250 4 200 c d 150 Q ° too d a 50 Z 0 300 y 250 c 200 U Q 150 o ♦ 100 E z 50 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) Figure A2-3. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias 61 1998 160 y 140 120 100 Q 0 80 60 n 40 Z 20 0 0 2000 180 160 140 120 a 100 80 E 60 Z 40 20 0 0 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.1930 600 • 500 - a0 a z 400 U Q • 0 300 200 Z 100 T T T 0 2 4 6 8 10 p = 0.1993 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density p = 0.1949 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density Sign Density 1999 p = 0.0972 120 100 80 Q • 0 60 a) 40 E Z 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density 2001 p = 0.0769 160 140 v, 120 100 0 80 60 E 40 • Z 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density Figure A2-4. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias 62 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.1937 300 c 250 • m 200 0 150 m E 100 • Z 50 • 0 ♦ ♦ •♦ 0 20 40 60 80 100 1998 p = 0.1752 160 140 120-- 100-- 80 60 3 40 -- Z • 20 0 0 P�lielf 120 100 80 Q 0 60 E40 Z 20 0 0 20 Distance with VRD (Miles) 1999 140 120 c v 100 Q 80 0 m 60 a E 40 Z 20 0 4 60 0 100 0 Distance with VRD (Miles) p = 0.1810 20 40 60 80 100 Distance with VRD (Miles) 2001 1 60 140 2 m 120 100 a 80 0 60 S 40 Z 20 0 p = 0.1171 20 40 60 80 QO Distance with VRD (Miles) p = 0.0902 0 20 40 60 80 100 Distance with VRD (Miles) Figure A2-5. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias 63 1998 120 , 100 80 U U Q 60 0 a 40 E Z 20 0 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = -0.026 160 140 — • a� 120 U Q 100---_— a� 80 — 60 ---1-- -- - E Z 40 -- ---- - - — — 20 — - -- -- 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) p = —0.022 1999 av 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 p = —0.061 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 2000 p = —0.077 140 ,n 120 c too Q 80 60 E 40 Z 20 600 Soo c -�00 U a '2100 100 7700 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 2001 p = -0.050 o 0 • s� +t--•o --6 W-- 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) Figure A2-6. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias s3jn2i j A4isu3G u2is put, luap!ooV EX XIGNadiv C U� 800 U Q 600 N E Z 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Sign Distribution _0) 5 O 4 E 3 Z 2 1 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-1. Comparison of 1998-2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker Nand Sussex Monroe Passai Bergen Carbon Warren Morris Essex Yak` Northampton Queens Union IGngs Lehigh Hunterdon Somerset } chmorK „. iieens i Berks n tydlesex nN d Bucks rti � Mercer Monmouth Montgomery ', Chester Philadelphi Delaware Burlington Ocean Camden Accident high New C e tl�,. Gloucester density cc) Salem Sign = o /mberl�and Atlantic low Figure A3-2. Aggregate Accident Densities (1998-2001) 67 Monroe Northampton Lehigh New Montgomery Delaware Sussex Warren Moms Hunterdon / Somerset Bucks Camden IZZ Gloucester Mercer Burlington Salem Atlantic m.and Figure A3-3. Sign Density Bergen / N A Monmouth U) O N O O Ocean Sign high density Sign = o low •: 250 c 200 O Q 150 O N .0 E 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker s 6 c 5 O 4 N E 3 Z 2 1 00 20 40 60 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-4. Comparison of 1998 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker MO Northampton Lehigh Bucks 3,. Montgomery Greater Delaware t Camden New CAe Gloucester Sussex Warren Mortis Hunterdon / Somerset Salem \ mberland Burlington Atlantic Essex 1W - 01" FOR / N A Monmouth N 0� N 0 0 Ln Ooean 0 Figure A3-5. Accident Density for 1998 70 250 C 200 N .0 Q 150 O L N -0 100 M Z 50 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 8 6 CO c rn 5 (n O � 4 N E 3 Z 2 1 00 Mile Marker 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-6. Comparison of 1999 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 71 Monroe Carbon Northampton Lehigh Berks Bucks Montgomery Chester Delaware Sussex Warren } Morris Hunterdon / Somerset zz Camden New C tle Gloucester Salem Zmberla�nd Mercer Burlington Atlantic Essex Union Monmouth Ocean Kings Queens Accident high density Sign = o IOW Figure A3-7. Accident Density for 1999 72 350 C: 300 N 250 Q w O 200 L (D E 150 Z 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 s c _0) 5 iz O 4 N E 3 Z 2 1 00 Sign Distribution I--,] i I IH 1 20 40 60 80 Mile Marker 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-8. Comparison of 2000 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 73 EssexYork Northampton Queens Union Kings Lehigh Hunterdon -chmond Somerset Queens Berks Middlesex Bucks r, N Mercer Monmouth f, Montgomery = o N 0 Chester Philadelphi Q Delaware Burlington Ocean Camden New C tle Gloucester Accident high density Salem Atlantic Sign = o mberiand IOW Figure A3-9. Accident Density for 2000 74 350 300 C N U 250 Q 200 ^L' W E 150 Z 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker f N Sign Distribution 2 1 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-10. Comparison of 2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 75 Carbon Lehigh Berks Chester Delaware IGngs Queens Accident high density Sign = 0 Figure A3-11. Accident Density for 2001 low 76 APPENDIX A.4 Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports for the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection 77 2001 Accidents -1W2 Accidents No. Date of Accident Principal L.00 ation No. Date of Accident Principal Location 1 I it \\„odbotni7c Road r4 13('r'_ A\iu,dboun,� R,I,uI ' 1 2:'01 Woodbourne Road 65 1'15102 South 1'400dbournc Road ul I _i.t I in�uln Hizlr.�ae nr I _'I it" '�,.wh Road 4 1 61'01 East Lincoln I{ighway ..., 67 1 25 02 South Woodbourne Road 1 6OI \wirlt \V"or,dh,unnc Rood r,S 1 '7()-1 �,nitF, A\oodLoiulic R,_,:_Id 0 113 O1 East Lincoln Highway 69 I.31'02 South Woodbourne Road �i rtl �Ln h \\ ooJhournc Road -11 ; tl2 I a.l Lincoln Ili_hvv.iv S 2 301 East Lincoln Ilighway -1 , z._ 71 213 02 South We odbourne Road I _i,i I_lli,uln I iLhwa} 111_Iw,111v 10 ' '"i)i East Lir cOln Nighx n ?3 23 02 South Woodbaurne: Road 1 I nil '-I,uth \\oodhournc Ro,id 74 14 (j2 1 1,1 1111 ,oln Ilr�h��:Iv 1 Z 2:1 S 01 East Lincoln Highway, 19%02 Last Lincoln Highway 71, _ r1"2 L,I,r I inroln Ilr_I;e,_n 14 2 28 Of . .„ Ea,,t Lincoln W'h\�ay 3 77 3 23'02 Last Lincoln Highway 1 ' {ik `r,utli \\ c,odhrnu'ni Road 19 r)_' I:.nt I intoln Ilislitt:,\ 16 , 10 )I South \Voodbotune Road 79 4i23r°02 South Woodbourne Road 1t1)I �,.ith U oodhownc R,LIJ 1�11 4 n2 Ca,t Lincoln IIl�liu,r, Is, 3 2 IM I South Woodbourne RO ad 81 4 29 02 South \Voodbotrrne Road 1l � 31 t)I I -u1 I.in,,,ln HiJnc,,. V' � S u2 5„utPA\oodhourni Ro.u1 {) 3 ;l-{)[ La+t Lincoln ill, hway Last Lincoln Highwav 21 ;l ill �utult \\owdhwurltC Road N,a r, uodh,unnc R„Id 22 4;1%01 Fast Lincoln Highway 6126,02 South "iVoldbourne Road ?; 4601 1_I't I_ntc„In IlieFnva% \wrtli A\oodh,,tunc ILo�ld 24 # 22rOt South Wood Road S7 e,' [! 02 East Lincoln Highway 4 '_; 111 �,oulh \\oodhomlw Road s�' � u' youth \\ooJbourr,e Ro:.ld 26 4 2(,.tll South Woodbourne Road 819 6 27 ti2 Last Lincoln Highway _- � "Irl f ,I,t Lulc,ln Ili_hr,r. ,1t1 - I lid \orlh \\ooJh„urns Ko_Id 2S sr i o) #) l South <1 OOdbot rrtc Road 91 T 3r02 Noah \i%o odbournc Road s 10f)I 1.ad I.I11Cjv'� ,I% I-Illcohl 111�17 \C;IA . 0 5/30,iOl South Woodbott rile Road 93 7,14 o2 South Wocxlbi-mme Road ;I 5 3I nil Ru,IJ y2 h l7 ill Fast Lincoln Highct iy 9ti 'r27 02 South \ oodbournc Road 1, 11 Ill '`with S, S ti' \\ o„Jhourn� Raul 4 6 `_'3 f)l Eca.t Lincoln M_Jww,iy 47 8 9,4Q2 South Woodbounie Road �5 7 1 ill I'_a,t Road 36 7.';'01 East Lincoln Hi'iawiv 99 S'IWO2 South Woodbourne Road r, Irl I .Ill I it idll Illcilvva': luU R n2 I a�[ I_inrwln Ili�h�� +y 38 ? "14 )1 North Woodbourttc Road "4 101 9 4iO2 Wcu.,dbourn+ Road A\ wodholll nc Road 112 1141h a\ 40 ; 20:0I South Woodbourne Road 1011 9191021 Womlbournc Road 41 7 111 ill I:A,l Line„In I IILIV,vX 104 i 12 u' La,r I lilL11111 III-'Itv,._Iv 42' S 21J)I North Woodbourne Road 105 9%23 02 Last Lincoln 14i,di cay 4 S'_' Of 11 ut„Jbnumc kind Iri(, 4 'd u` L.I�t I inrwln Ill�l'i�cav 44 S 24,01 East Lincoln Ifighway 107 9 2Si02 Last Lincoln Ilighway 4 S ,)I I I �L,�.Irh \\ oodhounn� R,,.IJ III, I(I : n2 S,,ulh \\ oodl�uurnc P II 46 9A9;01 South Woodbounie Road 101) 1 W 102 North Woodbournc Road Figure A4-1. 2001 and 2002 Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection 2001 Accidents Date of A 47 9/19/01 East Lincoln Highway 49 10/8/01 East Lincoln Highway 51 10/14/O1 East Lincoln Hi way 53 10/31/01 East Lincoln Hi wa 55 11/9/01 East Lincoln Hi "M 57 M 1123/O1 East Lincoln Highway 59 12/10/O1 East Lincoln Highway 61 1.2/20/Ol South Woodbourne Road 63 1226/01 East Lincoln Highway 2(H)2 Accidents 1_,, Date of Accident Princinal Location 110 10/25/02 :East Lincoln Highway 112 10/30/02 East Lincoln Hi wa 114 11/9/02 Woodbourne Road 116 11/16/02 East Lincoln Highway 118 11/29/02 East Lincoln Highway 120 12/6/02 East Lincoln Highway 122 12/7/02 East Lincoln Hi wa 124 12/11/02 North Woodbourne Road 126 12/14/02 South Woodbourne Road 128 12/28/02 East Lincoln Highway Figure A4-1 (continued). 2001 and 2002 Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection 79 is • • • UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 21 1 Radcliffe Street Bristol, PA 19007-5013 (215) 785-1922 FAX (215) 788-8395 www.ussc.org MEMBER RESOURCE FOLIO / LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION ON -PREMISE COMMERCIAL SIGNS AND DRIVER INFORMATION LOAD Researched and Written by Philip M. Garvey Pennsylvania State University The Pennsylvania Transportation Institute It has been suggested that, either through a proliferation of signs or too much information on individ- ual signs, on -premise commercial signs can result in a phenomenon known as "driver information over- load." Driver information overload has been defined as `providing a motorist with too much information, through a series of devices or conditions, for a driver to have adequate time to perceive and respond property." (Lerner, et al., 2003). These researchers described driver information load as being com- prised of Information Search Demand, which incorporates the specific sign or sign array being attended to and the general visual environment in which the sign is located, and Driving Task Demand, which includes the number of roadway geometric features (e.g., curves and lane drops), traffic volume, and travel speed. In a review of the literature on this topic Lerner and his colleagues concluded, "The information load imposed by a given array of information is not simply a function of the total number of 'bits' of informa- tion contained within the array, " and "The ability of the driver to 'shed' irrelevant or lower priority infor- mation is an important attribute." In evaluating information overload, another researcher (Gordon, 1981) similarly concluded, "The view that overload is simply accounted for by the amount of displayed sign information is naive. Information load is largely determined by what the driver does with the displayed information." Related to the issue of on -premise signs containing too much information, Gordon found that non -essential sign text does not increase sign scanning time. In other words, critical sign informa- tion is gleaned as quickly on signs that have superfluous secondary information as on signs that do not, and that non -essential items are simply skipped: "The eye scans (quickly) ... in search for the sought -for item." While there have been numerous studies on the affect of highway sign content, display, and place- ment on driver information overload, there is less research related to on -premise commercial signs. A few conducted in the 1970's touched on this issue while evaluating the possible distraction effect of commercial signs. In a study on distraction by irrelevant information, Johnston and Cole (1976) con- cluded, "the human operator has the capacity to shed irrelevant information." Tindal 1977 (in Andreassen, 1985) found that drivers are more likely to ignore signs that are not relevant to the driving task and more likely to attend to signs that have a direct effect on driving performance. Sanderson 1974 (in Andreassen, 1985) reported that when an advertising sign was placed among traffic signs, the subject drivers had significantly greater recall of the traffic signs. In general, all these studies indicate that, while there may indeed be. too much information on any particular sign, or too many signs in a given visual area (commercial or otherwise), drivers are not required to attend to all signs or all portions of signs. If there is potential for information overload brought about by having too rhuch information on an individual commercial sign or by having too many commercial signs in an array, drivers will disregard those portions of the signs that are irrelevant and quickly scan past signs that do not match their search criteria. However, while on -premise commercial signs can contribute to the information load on a driver, because they are not necessary to the primary driving tasks of speed maintenance and lane position- ing, they are perhaps the first to be disregarded in an overload situation. As it has been established that commercial signs play an important role in traveler navigation and wayfinding, disregarding these signs will not be optimal from a safety and traffic flow perspective. It is therefore certainly disadvanta- geous, for highway safety reasons, to have commercial signs with information that is not legible to the • • driver.** In summary, the research on driver attention to road signs indicates that too much information on indi- vidual on -premise commercial signs and/or too many of these signs in a given area may lead to drivers disregarding some signs (mainly irrelevant signs) or some information on the signs (typically second- ary). How this will affect on -premise sign effectiveness and indeed what constitutes driver information overload for both on -premise and highway signs is still up to debate. Even at the end of their six -year research study, Lerner, et al. (2003) were unable to determine a "red line" above which information load becomes information overload on highway signs. As no research has been conducted on information load of on -premise commercial signs, it is impossible to state, with any confidence, what combination of sign content, sign array, driver and environmental variables constitutes information overload for these signs. References Andreassen, D.C. (1985). Technical Note No. 1: Traffic accidents and advertising signs. Australian Road Research, 15(2), 103-105. Gordon, D.A. (1981). The assessment of guide sign information load. Human Factors 23(4), 453-466 Johnston, A.W., and Cole, B.L. (1976). Investigations of distraction by irrelevant information. Australian Road Research, 6(3), 3-23. • • Lerner, N.D., Llaneras, R.E., McGee, H.W., Taori, S., and Alexander, G. (2003). Additional investigations on driver overload. Transportation Research Board National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Report 488 ** number of signs or "glut" of commercial signs along a given roadway is a function primarily of local zoning and business or office property development. If there are smaller commercial lots along a roadway (say with lot frontages of 50' - 75'), and each has a freestanding sign, these signs will be installed closer together. A roadway with commercial lot frontages of 125' - 200' will appear to have more relaxed sign spacing. Glut is not a technical word, whether positive or negative. Sign frequency and/or sign spacing is not a subjective matter but a function of the commercial development density and lot sizes. About The Author: Philip M. Garvey holds a BA degree in psychology from Lynchburg College and a MS in experimental psychology from Villanova University, Villanova, PA. He has worked as a Research Scientist special- izing in traffic safety and visual perception for a private consulting firm. Since 1994 Garvey has been a research investigator at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI). In this capacity he worked on research that result- ed in the development of the Clearview font which has recently been accepted by the Federal Highway Administration for use on all highway guide signs. Throughout his career in transportation research, Garvey has been involved in numerous research projects investigating human performance in the transportation environment. His expertise in the field of human interaction with the roadway environment led to his selection as chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Committee on User Information Systems as well as his recent nomination for the FHWA 2003 National Roadway Safety Award. Garvey was a panel member on a National Cooperative Highway Research Program project on driver information overload, has • • been accepted as an expert witness in human factors issues in transportation safety, and has written numerous papers and contributed to books on traffic sign visibility. © 2003 United States Sign Council Inc. All rights reserved. 15'-8" UPPER MOLDING 5'-6" T-6" 24'-0" OVERALL 10'-8" EMC 9'-7" UPPER SIGN CamprWill No UPPER SIGN INTERNALLY ILLUM LA LSTEKABELED WHITE LEYAN FACE LED ELECTRONIC ♦-- MESSAGE CENTER SIGN ZONING RECAP CV5 FREESTANDING SIGN: PROP05ED 51GN AREA UPPER SIGN 0 52.70 EMC SIGN ® 3733 TOTAL 90.03 SF CHAPTER 10 SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1001 PURPOSE 1001.1 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the safety and orderly development of the community through the regulation of signs and sign structures. SECTION 1002 DEFINITIONS 1002.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein. ABANDONED SIGN. A sign structure that has ceased to be used, and the owner intends no longer to have used, for the dis- play of sign copy, or as otherwise defined by state law. ANIMATED SIGN. A sign employing actual motion or the il- lusion of motion. Animated signs, which are differentiated from changeable signs as defined and regulated by this code, include the following types: Electrically activated. Animated signs producing the illu- sion of movement by means of electronic, electrical or elec- tro-mechanical input and/or illumination capable of simulating movement through employment of the charac- teristics of one or both of the classifications noted below: 1. Flashing. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by a repeti- tive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same as or less than the period of nonillumination. For the purposes of this ordinance, flashing will not be defined as occurring if the cyclical period between on - off phases of illumination exceeds 4 seconds. 2. Patterned illusionary movement. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by simulated movement through alter- nate or sequential activation of various illuminated el- ements for the purpose of producing repetitive light patterns designed to appear in some form of constant motion. Environmentally activated. Animated signs or devices motivated by wind, thermal changes or other natural envi- ronmental input. Includes spinners, pinwheels, pennant strings, and/or other devices or displays that respond to nat- urally occurring external motivation. Mechanically activated. Animated signs characterized by repetitive motion and/or rotation activated by a mechanical system powered by electric motors or other mechanically induced means. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION. Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the face of an exterior wall of a building, but that does not include signs as defined herein. See also "Awning"; "Backlit awning"; and "Canopy, attached and freestanding." AWNING. An architectural projection or shelter projecting from and supported by the exterior wall of a building and com- posed of a covering of rigid or nonrigid materials and/or fabric on a supporting framework that may be either permanent or re- tractable, including such structures that are internally illumi- nated by fluorescent or other light sources. AWNING SIGN. A sign displayed on or attached flat against the surface or surfaces of an awning. See also "Wall or fascia sign." BACKLIT AWNING. An awning with a translucent covering material and a source of illumination contained within its framework. BANNER. A flexible substrate on which copy or graphics may be displayed. BANNER SIGN. A sign utilizing a banner as its display sur- face. BILLBOARD. See "Off -premise sign" and "Outdoor adver- tising sign." BUILDING ELEVATION. The entire side of a building, from ground level to the roofline, as viewed perpendicular to the walls on that side of the building. CANOPY (Attached). A multisided overhead structure or ar- chitectural projection supported by attachments to a building on one or more sides and either cantilevered from such building or also supported by columns at additional points. The sur- faces) and/or soffit of an attached canopy may be illuminated by means of internal or external sources of light. See also "Mar- quee." CANOPY (Free-standing). A multisided overhead structure supported by columns, but not enclosed by walls. The sur- face(s) and or soffit of a free-standing canopy may be illumi- nated by means of internal or external sources of light. CANOPY SIGN. A sign affixed to the visible surface(s) of an attached or free-standing canopy. For reference, see Section 1003. CHANGEABLE SIGN. A sign with the capability of content change by means of manual or remote input, including signs which are: Electrically activated. Changeable sign whose message copy or content can be changed by means of remote electri- cally energized on -off switching combinations of alpha- betic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface. Illumination may be integral to the components, such as characterized by lamps or other light -emitting de- vices; or it may be from an external light source designed to reflect off the changeable component display. See also "Electronic message sign or center." 2003 INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE® 29 T-6" 24'-0" OVERALL it l0 axwom owe 51GN ZONING RECAP M FREES VINQ SIGN PROPOSW SIGN AREA LWPER SIGN 0 62.70 EMC SIGN • j TOTAL 90.03 OF CHAPTER 10 SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1001 PURPOSE 1001.1 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the safety and orderly development of the community through the regulation of signs and sign structures. SECTION 1002 DEFINITIONS 1002.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein. ABANDONED SIGN. A sign structure that has ceased to be used, and the owner intends no longer to have used, for the dis- play of sign copy, or as otherwise defined by state law. ANIMATED SIGN. A sign employing actual motion or the il- lusion of motion. Animated signs, which are differentiated from changeable signs as defined and regulated by this code, include the following types: Electrically activated. Animated signs producing the illu- sion of movement by means of electronic, electrical or elec- tro-mechanical input and/or illumination capable of simulating movement through employment of the charac- teristics of one or both of the classifications noted below: 1. Flashing. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by a repeti- tive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same as or less than the period of nonillumination. For the purposes of this ordinance, flashing will not be defined as occurring if the cyclical period between on - off phases of illumination exceeds 4 seconds. 2. Patterned illusionary movement. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by simulated movement through alter- nate or sequential activation of various illuminated el- ements for the purpose of producing repetitive light patterns designed to appear in some form of constant motion. Environmentally activated. Animated signs or devices motivated by wind, thermal changes or other natural envi- ronmental input. Includes spinners, pinwheels, pennant strings, and/or other devices or displays that respond to nat- urally occurring external motivation. Mechanically activated. Animated signs characterized by repetitive motion and/or rotation activated by a mechanical system powered by electric motors or other mechanically induced means. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION. Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the face of an exterior wall of a building, but that does not include signs as defined herein. See also "Awning"; "Backlit awning"; and "Canopy, attached and freestanding." AWNING. An architectural projection or shelter projecting from and supported by the exterior wall of a building and com- posed of a covering of rigid or nonrigid materials and/or fabric on a supporting framework that may be either permanent or re- tractable, including such structures that are internally illumi- nated by fluorescent or other light sources. AWNING SIGN. A sign displayed on or attached flat against the surface or surfaces of an awning. See also "Wall or fascia sign." BACKLIT AWNING. An awning with a translucent covering material and a source of illumination contained within its framework. BANNER. A flexible substrate on which copy or graphics may be displayed. BANNER SIGN: A sign utilizing a banner as its display sur- face. BILLBOARD. See "Off -premise sign" and "Outdoor adver- tising sign." BUILDING ELEVATION. The entire side of a building, from ground level to the roofline, as viewed perpendicular to the walls on that side of the building. CANOPY (Attached). A multisided overhead structure or ar- chitectural projection supported by attachments to a building on one or more sides and either cantilevered from such building or also supported by columns at additional points. The sur- face(s) and/or soffit of an attached canopy may be illuminated by means of internal or external sources of light. See also "Mar- quee." CANOPY (Free-standing). A multisided overhead structure supported by columns, but not enclosed by walls. The sur- face(s) and or soffit of a free-standing canopy may be illumi- nated by means of internal or external sources of light. CANOPY SIGN. A sign affixed to the visible surface(s) of an attached or free-standing canopy. For reference, see Section 1003. CHANGEABLE SIGN. A sign with the capability of content change by means of manual or remote input, including signs which are: Electrically activated. Changeable sign whose message copy or content can be changed by means of remote electri- cally energized on -off switching combinations of alpha- betic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface. Illumination may be integral to the components, such as characterized by lamps or other light -emitting de- vices; or it may be from an external light source designed to reflect off the changeable component display. See also "Electronic message sign or center." 2003 INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE® 29 ..,...._,......._..�_.�,.,�.:.K_,:,:,,-.;:.:�.,�....,.:�:<:.�ssox.z�r';!S,Ss:?1:E!e:ism:i:s>;_<;.Y,���:>:.,:;:a`t;.i�t::>•.: .>: - - T-6" 24'=0" OVERALL, 10'-s" EMc 9-,7" UPPER SIGN UD . PROt'OW WA ARM LFM 616N 0 62.70 MM ,wm 0 gaol OF CHAPTER 10 SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1001 PURPOSE 1001.1 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the safety and orderly development of the community through the regulation of signs and sign structures. SECTION 1002 DEFINITIONS 1002.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein. ABANDONED SIGN. A sign structure that has ceased to be used, and the owner intends no longer to have used, for the dis- play of sign copy, or as otherwise defined by state law. ANIMATED SIGN. A sign employing actual motion or the il- lusion of motion. Animated signs, which are differentiated from changeable signs as defined and regulated by this code, include the following types: Electrically activated. Animated signs producing the illu- sion of movement by means of electronic, electrical or elec- tro-mechanical input and/or illumination capable of simulating movement through employment of the charac- teristics of one or both of the classifications noted below: 1. Flashing. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by a repeti- tive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same as or less than the period of nonillumination. For the purposes of this ordinance, flashing will not be defined as occurring if the cyclical period between on - off phases of illumination exceeds 4 seconds. 2. Patterned illusionary movement. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by simulated movement through alter- nate or sequential activation of various illuminated el- ements for the purpose of producing repetitive light patterns designed to appear in some form of constant motion. Environmentally activated. Animated signs or devices motivated by wind, thermal changes or other natural envi- ronmental input. Includes spinners, pinwheels, pennant strings, and/or other devices or displays that respond to nat- urally occurring external motivation. Mechanically activated. Animated signs characterized by repetitive motion and/or rotation activated by a mechanical system powered by electric motors or other mechanically induced means. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION. Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the face of an exterior wall of a building, but that does not include signs as defined herein. See also "Awning"; "Backlit awning"; and "Canopy, attached and freestanding." AWNING. An architectural projection or shelter projecting from and supported by the exterior wall of a building and com- posed of a covering of rigid or nonrigid materials and/or fabric on a supporting framework that may be either permanent or re- tractable, including such structures that are internally illumi- nated by fluorescent or other light sources. AWNING SIGN. A sign displayed on or attached flat against the surface or surfaces of an awning. See also "Wall or fascia sign." BACKLIT AWNING. An awning with a translucent covering material and a source of illumination contained within its framework. BANNER. A flexible substrate on which copy or graphics may be displayed. BANNER SIGN. A sign utilizing a banner as its display sur- face. BILLBOARD. See "Off -premise sign' and "Outdoor adver- tising sign." BUILDING ELEVATION. The entire side of a building, from ground level to the roofline, as viewed perpendicular to the walls on that side of the building. CANOPY (Attached). A multisided overhead structure or ar- chitectural projection supported by attachments to a building on one or more sides and either cantilevered from such building or also supported by columns at additional points. The sur- faces) and/or soffit of an attached canopy may be illuminated by means of internal or external sources of light. See also "Mar- quee." CANOPY (Free-standing). A multisided overhead structure supported by columns, but not enclosed by walls. The sur- face(s) and or soffit of a free-standing canopy may be illumi- nated by means of internal or external sources of light. CANOPY SIGN. A sign affixed to the visible surface(s) of an attached or free-standing canopy. For reference, see Section 1003. CHANGEABLE SIGN. A sign with the capability of content change by means of manual or remote input, including signs which are: Electrically activated. Changeable sign whose message copy or content can be changed by means of remote electri- cally energized on -off switching combinations of alpha- betic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface. Illumination may be integral to the components, such as characterized by lamps or other light -emitting de- vices; or it may be from an external light source designed to reflect off the changeable component display. See also "Electronic message sign or center." 2003 INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE® 29 REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGNS Overview We are all very fortunate to live in a society that places a premium value on freedoms, and limits governmental intrusion upon those freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of those essential freedoms, and one that is embodied within the Constitution that molds the rule of law governing this great nation. Many reputable organizations, like the U.S. Small Business Administration and the International Sign Association caution against sign regulations that interfere with the freedom of exercising commercial speech. The following information has been assembled by a coalition of manufacturers of electronic message display signs. We recognize the uncertainty surrounding the legality of certain sign regulations. We also respect the desire by communities to regulate signs, including electronic message display signs, and the need for responsible sign codes. Without engaging in debate over the legality of regulations affecting electronic message displays, the following materials are intended to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the current state of the technology, and to promote regulations that reflect the broad variations in the use of electronic message displays. The History of Changeable Message Signs In the day when signs were primarily painted, changing messages on a sign merely required painting over the existing message. More recently, signs with removable lettering made it possible to manually change the lettering on a sign to display a new message. Electrical changeable message signs followed the invention of the light bulb, and included light bulbs arranged in a pattern where, by lighting some light bulbs and not the others, letters and numerals could be spelled out. With the advent of solid-state circuitry in the early 1970s, electronic changeable message signs became possible. The first of these products were time and temperature displays and simple text message displays using incandescent lamps. These lamps were very inefficient. They used a great deal of power and had short life expectancies. During the energy crunch of the 1980s, it became necessary to find ways to reduce the power consumption of these displays. This need initially spawned a reflective technology. This technology typically consisted of a light -reflective material applied to a mechanical device, sometimes referred to as "flip disk" 1 displays. Electrical impulses were applied to a grid of disks with reflective material on one side of the disk, and a contrasting finish on the other side. The electrical impulses would position each disk within the grid to either reveal or conceal the reflective portion of the device as required, to produce an image or spell out a message. These technologies were energy efficient, but due to the mechanical nature of the product, failures were an issue. Shortly after the introduction of the reflective products, new incandescent lamps emerged. The new "wedge base" Xenon gas -filled lamps featured many positive qualities. Compared to the larger incandescent lamps that had been used for several years, the wedge base lamps were very bright, required less power to operate and had much longer lifetimes. These smaller lamps allowed electronic display manufacturers to build displays that featured tighter resolutions, allowing users to create more ornate graphic images. Next in the evolution of the changeable message sign was the LED. LED (light emitting diode) technology had been used for changeable message displays since the mid 1970s. Originally, LEDs were available in three colors: red, green and amber, but were typically used for indoor systems because the light intensity was insufficient for outdoor applications and the durability of the diodes suffered in the changing temperatures and weather conditions. As technology improved, manufacturers were able to produce displays that had the intensity and long life required for outdoor use, but were limited in the viewing angle from which they could be effectively seen. Recently, breakthroughs in this field have made available high intensity LEDs in red, green, blue and amber. These LEDs have made it possible to produce displays bright enough for outdoor use with viewing angles that are equal to, or better than, other technologies currently available. They are energy -efficient, can be programmed and operated remotely, and require little maintenance. In addition, the computer software has evolved such that a broad range of visual effects can be used to display messages and images. The spacing of the LEDs can be manipulated to achieve near -television resolution. Earlier "flip disk" and incandescent technologies have become nearly obsolete as a result. Types of Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs can be placed into two basic categories: manually - changed and electronically -changed. The most common form of manually - changed sign involves a background surface with horizontal channels. Letters and numerals are printed on individual plastic cards that are manually fitted into the channels on the sign face. A broad range of letter styles and colors are available. The manually -changed sign is relatively inexpensive and is somewhat versatile. Some discoloration has been experienced in the background surface materials with exposure to weather and the sun. Changing the message on such a sign is accomplished by having an employee or technician remove the existing plastic letter cards and replacing them with cards displaying the new message. Occasionally, such signs have been the subjects of vandals who steal the letters or, as a prank, re -arrange them to spell out undesirable messages. Over time, as letters are replaced with lettering styles that deviate in color or type style from the original set, such signs have had a tendency to take on a mix -and -match appearance. Electronic changeable message signs are generally of two types: light emitting and light reflective. Current light emitting display technologies include LED and incandescent lamp. Light reflective displays typically consist of either a reflective material affixed to a mechanical device (like a "flip disk") or a substance commonly referred to as electronic ink. Many of the above mentioned technologies have the capabilities to display monochromatic (single color) or multiple color images. Monochrome changeable message signs are typically used to display text messages. Multiple color displays are more common in applications where color logos or video is displayed. Operational Capabilities of Electronic Signs Electronic signs have evolved to the point of being capable of a broad range of operational capabilities. They are controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program. This software is typically a proprietary component that is supplied by the display manufacturer. These software programs determine the capabilities of the displays. The software is then loaded onto a computer that operates the sign. The computer may be installed within the sign itself, operated remotely from a nearby building, or even more remotely by a computer located miles away and connected to the sign with a telephone line modem or other remote communication technology. Since most of the software programs are proprietary, one can assume that each software program is slightly different. However, the capabilities that the programs offer are all very similar. Changeable message sign manufacturers provide software that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer -generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television -quality video. Text messages or graphic images can simply appear and disappear from the display or they can be displayed using creative entry and exit effects and transitions. Example: Oftentimes a display operator will choose to have a text message scroll onto the display and then "wipe -off" as if the frame has been turned like the page of a book. If a display has the capabilities to display graphics, logos or even video, it is common for the display operator to add motion to these images. Example: A display operator at a school may wish to create an animation where their school's mascot charges across a football field and runs over the competing school's mascot. Video -capable displays can operate much like a television. These displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text. All display capabilities are securely in the hands of the display operators. They are ultimately responsible for what type of, and how, information is displayed on their changeable message sign. Traffic Safety Considerations Electronic message displays (EMDs) are capable of a broad variation of operations, from fully -static to fully -animated. In exterior sign use, they are often placed where they are visible to oncoming traffic. Concerns are often raised as communities change their sign codes to expressly permit such signage about the traffic safety implications for signage with moving messages. These concerns are largely unfounded. EMDs have been in operation for many years. As is typical with many technological advances, the regulatory environment has been slow to respond to advances in the technology itself. In 1978, after many years of the use of electronic signs, Congress first passed legislation dealing with the use of illuminated variable message signs along the interstate and federal aid primary highway system. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act permitted electronic message display signs, subject to state law, provided each message remained fixed on the display surface but "which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or remote control," and did not include "any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights." 23 U.S.C. § 131. In 1980, and in response to safety concerns over EMDs along highways, the Federal Highway Administration published a report titled "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable- r Ll Message Signs." This report was an exhaustive analysis of the safety implications of EMDs used along highways. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of safety studies that had occurred to that time, some concluding that roadside signs posed a traffic distraction, and others concluding that roadside signs do not cause traffic accidents. In view of the inevitable use of the technology in signage, the report made some sensible observations about traffic safety considerations for such signs: 1. Longitudinal location. The report recommended that spacing standards be adopted to avoid overloading the driver's information processing capability. Unlike the standard for sign regulations in 1980, most communities today have spacing standards already integrated into their sign codes. 2. Lateral location. Often referred to as "setback," the report initially recommended the common sense requirement that such signs be placed where the risk of colliding into the sign is eliminated. This was a legitimate concern, as such signs were being contemplated for use by highway departments themselves in the right-of-way. Private use of roadside signs is generally limited to locations outside the right-of-way, so this should not be a significant concern. The next issue addressed by the report was visibility. The report advocated the minimum setback feasible, stating that "standards for lateral location should reduce the time that drivers' attention is diverted from road and traffic conditions. Generally this suggests that signs should be located and angled so as to reduce the need for a driver to turn his head to read them as he :L approaches and passes them." This can best be handled by permitting such signs to be located at the property line, with no setback, and angled for view by oncoming traffic. 3. Operations: Duration of message on -time. The report states that the duration of the message on -time should be related to the length of the message, or in the case of messages displayed sequentially, the message element. For instance, based on state highway agency experience, "comprehension of a message displayed on a panel of three lines having a maximum of 20 characters per line is best when the on -time is 15 seconds. In contrast, the customary practice of signing which merely displays time and temperature is to have shorter on -times of 3 to 4 seconds." Since this 1980 report, state highway agencies have adopted, for use on their own signs, informal standards of considerably shorter "on" time duration, with no apparent adverse effects on traffic safety. Federal legislation affecting billboard use of electronic signs 5 requires only that messages be changed at "reasonable intervals."' Moreover, the U.S. Small Business Administration, in a report on its website reviewing safety information compiled since the 1980 report, has concluded that there is no adverse safety impact from the use of EMD signs. See http://www.sba..qov/startinqZsignage/safelegal.html. The most recent study was performed in 2003 by Tantala Consulting Engineers, available through the U.S. Sign Council at http://www.ussc.org/publications.html, also concluding based on field studies that EMD signs do not adversely affect traffic safety. Many small businesses using one -line EMD displays are only capable of displaying a few characters at one time on the display, changing frequently, which takes virtually no time for a driver to absorb in short glances. These signs have likewise not proven to be a safety concern, despite many years of use. 4. Operations: Total information cycle. EMD signs can be used to display stand-alone messages, or messages that are broken into segments displayed sequentially to form a complete message. As to the sequential messages, the report recommended a minimum on -time for each message "calculated such that a motorist traveling the affected road at the 851" percentile speed would be able to read not more than one complete nor two partial messages in the time required to approach and pass the sign." 5. Operations: Duration of message change interval and off -time. The report defines the message change interval as the portion of the complete information cycle commencing when message "one" falls below the threshold of legibility and ending when message "two" in a sequence first reaches the threshold of legibility. This is relevant when operations such as "fade off -fade on" are used, when the first message dissolves into the second message, or when the two messages move horizontally (traveling) or vertically (scrolling) to replace the first message with the second. Off -time, on the other hand, is a message change operation that involves the straightforward turning off of the first message, with a period of blank screen, before the second message is instantly turned on. ' The appropriate interval of message change may be affected by a variety of factors, and one standard does not fit all situations. Imagine, for instance, a bridge that serves two roadways, one with a speed limit of 30 mph and the other a highway with a speed limit of 60 mph. In a situation where the bridge is socked in by fog, an electronic sign on the approach to the bridge may be used to convey the message, "Fog ahead ... on bridge... reduce speed ... to 15 mph." The driver on each roadway needs to see all the segments to the full message. The rate of changing each segment of the message needs to be different for each roadway. If the change rate were based only on the 60 mph speed, the sign on the slower roadway may appear too active. If the change rate were based only on the 30 mph speed, the result could be fatal to drivers on the highway. 2 The report takes an extremely conservative approach as to message change interval, advising against the use of operations other than nearly instantaneous message changes. If such operations are permitted, the report suggests "that the figure commonly used as a measure of average glance duration, 0.3 second, be used here as a maximum permissible message change time limit." The report further advocates minimizing off -time between messages, where static message changes are used, stating that "[a]s this interval of off -time is lengthened, the difficulty of maintaining the continuity of attention and comprehension is increased." The conservative nature of the authors' position is reflected both in the report, and in over twenty years of practice since the report was issued. The report cites studies indicating that, in some situations, the use of electronic operations had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, by creating a more visually -stimulating environment along an otherwise mind -numbing segment of highway, helping to re -focus and sharpen the driver's attention to his or her surroundings. In over twenty years of experience, with numerous electronic signs nationwide utilizing the various operational capabilities for message change, there has been no significant degradation to highway safety reported. Many electronic signs used by highway departments now use a mode of transition between messages or message segments, such as traveling or scrolling. Drivers are apparently capable of attaching primacy to the visual information most critical to the driving task, with sign messages taking a secondary role. The report further expresses its limited focus upon interstate and federal aid primary highways. Noting the stimulating visual environment created by full - animation signage in places like Times Square, Las Vegas and Toronto's Eaton Centre, the authors of the report agreed that such signs added vitality and dimension to the urban core, but discouraged the use of animation alongside the highway. The report did not deal with the use of such signs, or their operational characteristics, on roadways between the extremes of the interstate highway and the urban core. In addition, animation has now been used on highway -oriented signs in many locations for years, with no reported adverse effect of traffic safety. In sum, the report acknowledged the appropriateness of full -animation electronic signs within the urban core, but recommended that full -animation not be used along interstate and primary highways. It took a conservative position on operations of such signs along highways, advocating static message change sequences only, with no more than 0.3 seconds of message change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such signs 7 a_: s change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at reasonable intervals." Such signs should have adequate spacing between signs, but be set back from the right- of-way as little as feasible. Since 1980, no new information has become available supporting a traffic safety concern about EMDs. They have been installed in highway locations, along city streets and in urban core settings, using all forms of operations: static, sequential messaging and full animation. Despite such widespread use, and the presence of environmental organizations generally adverse to sign displays, no credible studies have established a correlation between EMDs and a degradation in traffic safety. An article in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in Spring, 1997, arrived at the same conclusion. Professor Taylor, of Villanova University, analyzing this lack of data to support such a correlation, concluded that "there appears to be no reason to believe that changeable message signs represent a safety hazard." From a safety standpoint, and based on the studies and practical experience that has been accumulated since the widespread use of EMDs, some conclusions can be reached: • In an urban core setting, where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable, full -animation EMDs have been shown to be viable without degrading traffic safety. • In an urban setting, such as along arterial streets, EMDs have been used with static messages changed by use of transitions such as traveling, scrolling, fading and dissolving, without any apparent impact on traffic safety. Quite likely, this can be attributed to the primacy of the navigation task, and the secondary nature of roadside signage. • Along interstate and other limited access highways, the only significant traffic safety analysis recommends the use of static messages only, and the federal government permits message changes at "reasonable intervals." Many highway departments change messages on their own signs every 1-2 seconds. The report further recommends that sequential messages be timed to ensure that the entire sequence of messages be displayed in the time it takes a car to travel from initial legibility to beyond the sign. In practice, and in the 20+ years since publication of this report, the operational characteristics of such signs have been expanded to include t fading, dissolving, scrolling and traveling, without any apparent adverse effect on traffic safety. Regulation of Electronic Signs The history of the regulation of electronic signs has been largely marked by polar extremes in regulation. A number of zoning and sign codes have treated such signs as any other sign, with no special regulations. Others have attempted to prohibit their use in the entirety, largely out of concerns for traffic safety, and in some cases in the stated interest of aesthetics. For the reasons stated above, the traffic safety concerns have been largely unfounded. In decades of use and intense scrutiny, no definitive relationship between electronic signs and traffic accidents has been established. In fact, some studies have suggested that animated electronic signs may help keep the driver whose mind has begun to wander re -focused on the visual environment in and around the roadway. No studies support the notion that an electronic sign with a static display has a visual impact, from either a traffic safety or aesthetic impact, different from that of any other illuminated sign. Despite this, the fear of negative impact from potentially distracting signs has in the past motivated some communities to attempt to prohibit electronic signs altogether. Two common approaches have been to prohibit sign "animation" and the "intermittent illumination" of electronic signs. Both approaches have had their limitations. Electronic signs that are computer -controlled often have the capability to be displayed with a multitude of operational characteristics, many of which fall within the typical definition of "animation." However, static display techniques are quite commonplace with electronic signs, and the cost of using electronics in relatively typical sign applications has become more affordable. The programming of an electronic sign to utilize static displays only is simple and straightforward, yet probably overkill in the legal and practical sense. Nonetheless, out of fear that the programming may be changed to animation after a sign is permitted and operational, some local regulators have attempted to take the position that LED and other electronic signs are prohibited altogether. This position is unsound. There is no legal basis to deny a static -display electronic sign, as it is legally indistinguishable from any other illuminated sign. We don't prohibit car usage merely because the cars are designed so that they can exceed the speed limit; we issue a ticket to the driver if they do exceed the speed limit. Likewise, if a sign owner actually violates the zoning or sign code, the remedy is to cite them for the violation, not to presume that they will do so and refuse to issue E permits at the outset. Moreover, most communities permit changing messages on signs displaying time and temperature, with no restrictions on timing. To apply a different standard to signs displaying commercial or noncommercial messages would be to regulate on the basis of the content of the sign, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The code technique of prohibiting "intermittent illumination" has its own limitations as it relates to electronic signs. The term "intermittent" suggests that the sign is illuminated at some times, and not illuminated at others. This is no basis to distinguish between an electronic sign and any other illuminated sign. Virtually all illuminated signs go through a cycle of illumination and non -illumination, as the sign is turned off during the day when illumination is not needed, or during the evening after business hours. If this were the standard, most sign owners would be guilty of a code violation on a daily basis. t Other terminology may be used in sign codes, but the fact is that a regulation must be tailored to the evil it is designed to prevent. Community attitudes toward viewing digital images have changed nationwide, with personal computer use and exposure to electronic signs becoming widespread. People are simply accustomed to the exposure to such displays, more so than in years past. In some communities, there remains a concern about the potential that such signs may appear distracting, from a safety or aesthetic standpoint. Yet, static displays do not have this character, and even EMDs with moving text have not proven to have any negative impact. The real focus should be on the operations used for the change in message, and frame effects that accompany the message display. Many of these transition operations and frame effects are quite subtle, or otherwise acceptable from a community standpoint. It is now possible to define these operations, in the code itself, with sufficient specificity to be able to enforce the differences between what is acceptable and what is not. The critical regulatory factors in the display of electronic changeable message signs are: 1) Duration of message display, 2) Message transition, and 3) Frame effects. With the exception of those locations where full animation is acceptable, the safety studies indicate that messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Government users of signs have utilized 1-2 seconds on their own signs as a reasonable interval for message changes, and other communities permit very short display times or continuous scrolling on business signs without adverse effect. As a policy matter, some communities have elected to adopt longer duration periods, although to do so limits the potential benefits of using an electronic sign, particularly where messages are broken down into segments displayed sequentially on the sign. The message transitions and frame effects are probably the greater focus, from a sign code standpoint. It is during the message transition or frame effect that the eye is most likely drawn to the sign. What is acceptable is a matter of community 10 �q attitude. Flashing is a frame effect that is prohibited in many communities, but other more subtle transitions can be accepted. It is relatively easy to define four basic levels of operational modes for message transitions that can be incorporated into a sign code: Level 1 Static Display Only (messages changed with no transition) Level 2 Static Display with "Fade" or "Dissolve" transitions, or similar subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images Level Static Display with "Travel" or "Scrolling" transitions, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text or animated images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once Level 4 Full Animation, Flashing and Video There are, in fact, other operations recogriized within the industry. However, in practice they can be equated.in visual impact with "fade," "dissolve," "travel" or "scrolling," based on their visual effect, or otherwise be considered full animation. Different transition operations may be acceptable in different locations. For example, communities like Las Vegas accept full animation as a community standard, whereas others accept full animation only in urban core locations where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable. Some communities may desire not to have an area with such visual stimuli, and elect to prohibit animation everywhere. However, in such a community, fade or scrolling may be acceptable forms of message transitions for static displays. In the most conservative communities, static displays with no observable transition between messages may be the only acceptable course. The next decision point for a community seeking to regulate electronic signs is procedural. Some signs may be acceptable always, while the community may determine that others are acceptable only in certain given circumstances. Alternatives to be considered for a sign code are as follows: • Permit electronic signs "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs with certain transitions "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs, subject to a review procedure 11 Permit electronic signs, with certain transitions, subject to a review procedure A hybrid of the above For instance, one community may find it acceptable to permit electronic signs, with full animation, as a matter of right. Other than a straightforward sign permit, no other review is required. In another community, the sign code structure may permit: 1) Static displays with no transitions as a matter of right, 2) static displays using fade or dissolve transitions as a matter of right in certain commercial zoning districts, 3) static displays using travel and scrolling transitions and animations in certain commercial districts, subject to approval of a special use permit, where the approving board can consider compatibility with surrounding land uses and attach conditions on the rate of message changes, and 4) Fully-animated/video displays in the downtown commercial district only, subject to approval of a special use permit. The level of procedure involved should be tailored to the acceptance level of the community, and the resources available should public review be desired. In the following section, we have provided model code language that can be used, for reference, to incorporate into a community's sign code. The model language suggests code scenarios based on each of the four levels of display transitions. It also provides alternative language, for some scenarios, to either incorporate a special review procedure or not. Of course, the model language must be tailored to a particular community's sign code. Variation may be necessary, where, for instance, the special review procedure would be by the local planning commission, city council or design review board. With ease, the model code language can be modified to meet local conditions. © 2004 Electronic Display Manufacturers Association 12 Model Sign Code Provisions for Electronic Signs Level 1-Static Display (Message Changed with no Transition) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. c. Message Change Sequence. [Alternative 1: The change of messages must be accomplished immediately.] [Alternative 2: A minimum of 0.3 seconds of time with no message displayed shall be provided between each message displayed on the sign.] 13 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 2-Static Display (Fade/Dissolve Transitions) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, changed only through dissolve or fade transitions, or with the use of other subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images, but which may otherwise not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. i 14 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 3-Static Display (Travel/Scroll Transitions and Animations) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. SCROLL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move vertically across the display surface. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. TRAVEL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move horizontally across the display surface. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall be limited to static displays, messages that appear or disappear from the display through dissolve, fade, travel or scroll modes, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text, animated graphics or images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 15 e Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 4-Video/Animation Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means, including animated graphics and video. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] 16 ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER RESEARCH REVIEW UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER RESEARCH REVIEW A Research Project Of The UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION By Philip M. Garvey The Visual Communication Research Institute State College, Pennsylvania and Martin T. Pietrucha The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania Funded by research grants provided by The United States Sign Council Foundation Inc. 211 Radcliffe Street, Bristol, PA 19007 215-785-1922 / Fax: 215-788-8395 © 2005 United States Sign Council Foundation Inc. All Rights Reserved Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 HOW EFFECTIVE ARE EMCs?............................................................................................... 2 How much information is too much?...................................................................................... 3 What effect does driving have on sign reading?..................................................................... 5 How large should EMC letters be?......................................................................................... 5 People read words and sentences, not letters!........................................................................ 7 Whatabout color?................................................................................................................... 8 Whatabout font?..................................................................................................................... 8 What about letter, word, and line spacing?............................................................................ 8 Is lowercase more legible than uppercase?............................................................................ 9 Does contrast orientation (or polarity) have an effect?......................................................... 9 Are symbols better than text?................................................................................................ 10 Do abbreviations work?........................................................................................................ 11 What is the impact of sign brightness?................................................................................. 12 • How about contrast?............................................................................................................. 13 How should long sign messages be displayed? (Paging and Streaming) ............................. 13 How fast should sign information move?.............................................................................. 14 WHAT ARE THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF EMCs?.................................................... 15 Eye Movement Research....................................................................................................... 15 Driver attention in the presence of static commercial signs ................................................. 17 Driver attention in the presence of EMCs........................:................................................... 18 Crashes in the presence of static commercial signs............................................................. 18 Crashes in the presence of EMCs......................................................................................... 20 EMC ZONING REGULATIONS............................................................................................ 22 WHAT ARE THE PRESSING EMC RESEARCH NEEDS? .................................................. 22 Viewing a dynamic sign from a moving vehicle.................................................................... 24 Regulationsand Safety.......................................................................................................... 26 Recommended Research....................................................................................................... 27 • REFERENCES...................:..................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A Annotated Bibliography....................................................................................... 1 iii • INTRODUCTION The Electronic Display Manufacturers Association (EDMA, 2004) defines electronic message centers (EMCs) as signs that are "controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program ... that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer -generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television -quality video (these displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text)." EMCs are also known as video billboards, electronic billboards, and electronic message displays. For the purposes of outdoor advertising, EMC manufacturer and distributor Lightvision Media Network of Vancouver has characterized EMCs as, "Where television meets outdoors" (Brill, 2002). Although typical transportation applications are restricted to the use of static letters and, in rare instances, select symbols, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines EMCs as "programmable displays that have the capability to present a large amount of text and/or • symbolic imagery. Some [EMCs] present images in realistic motion and in a large variety of colors" (FHWA, 2001). In the transportation community, where much of the research on these signs has been conducted, they are called changeable, dynamic, or variable message signs (CMS, VMS, or DMS, respectively). While there are numerous uses for EMCs that range from streaming video boards, through outdoor advertising, on -premise information, and finally traffic advisory, to the extent possible this paper will refer to three distinct sign types: CMS for transportation applications; on premise EMC for commercial or civic announcement signs, and off -premise EMC for "billboard" or outdoor advertising signs. The terms "commercial EMC" and "EMC" will be used in generic boundary -crossing discussions. A recent FHWA memorandum (Paniatti, 2003) included the statement, "While CMS can be a very effective method of providing information to motorists, [given the time constraints of a driving audience] they can convey only a limited amount of information and may not be the safest or most effective method in many cases." Lightvision Media (among other off premise EMC manufacturers) see the prime location for these devices as "very high traffic, slow moving (road bottlenecks) spots such as merging lanes or bridge or tunnel entrances that slow down is passing vehicles" (Brill, 2002). This conceptual disparity is part of what has made the commercial roadway application of EMCs so contentious. The original objective of this paper was to synthesize a review of existing literature on • the effectiveness and safety of EMCs used as on -premise and off -premise commercial signs. The intent was to provide a resource for the EMC industry and to identify gaps in the research that could be bridged by further investigation. Unfortunately, there has been little research conduced specifically on commercial EMCs; and therefore, the synthesis is based mainly on the results of static and dynamic highway sign research and basic human factors concepts. The fundamental lessons learned from these studies concerning highway sign effectiveness and safety will be applicable to EMCs, however commercial and highway sign messages and sign characteristics differ significantly, therefore, it is highly recommended that the findings reported on herein be verified by further research using commercial EMCs. For the purposes of this paper, EMC effectiveness is defined as the visibility and comprehensibility of EMC messages, and EMC safety is defined as the potential of these signs to distract roadway users, which could possibly contribute to an increase in motor vehicle crashes in the vicinity of the signs. The effectiveness analysis consists primarily of non-commercial EMC research (i.e., CMS), while the safety review is based on the limited literature that has addressed EMCs specifically and the somewhat larger database on commercial signs in general. • An annotated bibliography can be found in Appendix A. HOW EFFECTIVE ARE EMCs? The ability of an EMC to effectively communicate with roadway users is a function of its capacity to communicate visual information quickly, as signs on the roadway are typically read by drivers in a series of short (less than one second) glances. If the target audience is pedestrians, motor vehicle passengers, or drivers of vehicles stopped in traffic or at an intersection, the time allotted for this "communication" would be longer. All of the research uncovered for this paper addressed the needs of vehicle operators driving in "free flow" conditions at normal operating speeds. The potential need for research on audiences other than vehicle operators in free flow conditions (e.g., pedestrians, passengers) is discussed at the end of this paper. In lieu of any direct research on the visual communication strengths and weaknesses of commercial EMCs, this analysis relied heavily on published reports on static highway signs and changeable message signs used by public sector transportation agencies. The following • section addresses variables that impact the effectiveness of all highway signs and should be applicable to the optimization of EMC communication. 2 • How much information is too much?. Knowledge of how people assimilate visual information is critical to understanding the amount of information that can be effectively displayed on any individual roadway sign. Basic data on how quickly people read sign content (either text or pictures) while operating a motor vehicle should drive sign content limits. To find that type of data, the literature on human reading capacity was surveyed. Proffitt, et al. (1998) reported 250 words per minute (4.2 words per second or one word every quarter second) as the average "normal" reading speed for adults. Research on highway sign reading, however, provides evidence that it takes drivers anywhere from 0.5 to 2.0 seconds to read and process a single sign word. Studies that have evaluated a concept known as "optimum acuity reserve" (i.e., the ratio between the smallest legible copy and the optimal print size for reading) explains some of the disparity between "normal" reading speed of above size -threshold text (such as a book) and the time it takes to read a sign while driving, which often begins at the smallest size/largest distance at which the words just become readable. Optical character recognition research has demonstrated that the fastest reading speeds result from print size that may be as much as four times size threshold (Bowers and Reid, 1997; • Yager, et al., 1998; Lovie-Kitchin, et al., 2000). In fact; in their reading rate calculations Yager, et al. (1998) used 0.0 words per minute as a basic assumption for reading speed at size threshold. Psychological factors play an important part in sign reading speed. McNees and Messer (1982) found that the time it takes to read a sign depends, among other things, on how much time the driver has to read it (i.e., signs are read faster when it is necessary to do so). They also found that as reading speed increases so do errors (the well known speed/accuracy tradeoff). Proffitt, et al. (1998) stated that longer words need to have a larger letter height than shorter words and that short, standard messages with symbols, using mixed case letters and no. abbreviations, are easier and more likely to be read by passing motorists. In general, Proffitt, et al. (1998) suggested that drivers are more likely to read signs if doing so requires little effort and if the sign content is brief text or symbols. Dudek (1991) recommended a minimum exposure time of "one second per short word ... or two seconds per unit of information" for unfamiliar drivers to read changeable message signs. In a study conducted by.Mast and Balias (1976), the average time spent reading advance static guide signs (signs before the exit) was 3.12 seconds and the average time spent • reading exit direction signs was 2.28 seconds; these researchers did not specify the number of words on the signs. Also without specifying the number of sign words, McNees and Messer 3 (1982) concluded that, "a cut-off of approximately 4.0 seconds to read any [static] sign was • critical for safe handling of a vehicle along urban freeways." In another study of static traffic signs, Smiley, et al. (1998) found that 2.5 seconds was sufficient for 94 percent of their subjects to accurately read signs that contained three destination names; however that performance level dropped to 88 percent when the signs displayed four or five names. Specifically looking at changeable message signs in a laboratory environment, Dudek and Ullman (2002) (also reported in Ullman, 2001) found that flashing a message to attract driver attention significantly increased the time motorists needed to read the sign. These researchers also found that flashing only one part of a message not only increased reading time, but also reduced the retention of the message on the rest of the sign. These researchers recommended that messages exceeding the information capable of being transmitted on a single CMS screen or frame should be avoided if possible. In the section on CMS message content in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the FHWA made the following recommendations: • The message should be as brief as possible. • Signs should be limited to not more than three lines with not more than 20 characters per • line. • No more than two displays should be used within any message cycle. • When a message is longer than two phases, additional changeable message signs should be used. • Each display should convey a single thought. • When abbreviations are used, they should be easily understood. • The entire message cycle should be readable at least twice by drivers traveling the posted speed, the off-peak 85th-percentile speed, or the operating speed. (USDOT, 2003) While it is unrealistic to expect a single minimum time to allow all drivers to read and understand any sign, the research on sign reading speed discussed above indicates that signs displaying one word could be comfortably read and comprehended in approximately 1.0 second, signs with two to three words could be read in 2.5 seconds, and signs with four to eight words in 4.0 seconds. • 4 • What effect does driving have on sign reading? In addition to reading signs, drivers must also watch the road and perform other driving tasks. Using calculations from McNees' and Messer's (1982) research on overhead static guide signs, for drivers to have 4.0 seconds of sign reading time, a sign would have to be legible for 10.0 seconds. This results from adding 2.0 seconds for sign clearance time (when the sign is at too great an angle to be read comfortably) and 8.0 seconds divided equally between 4.0 seconds of sign reading and 4.0 seconds for other driving tasks. In looking at static highway signs mounted on the road shoulder, Smiley, et al. (1998) provided less conservative estimates. These researchers allowed for 0.5 seconds clearance time and a 0.5 seconds glance back at the road for every 2.5 seconds of sign reading (based on eye movement research by Bhise and Rockwell, 1973). This would require a 1.5 second legibility distance for 1.0 seconds of sign reading, 3.0 seconds of legibility distance for 2.5 seconds of sign reading, and 5.0 seconds for 4.0 seconds of sign reading. This is assuming that the driver begins to read the sign as soon as it becomes legible. Allowing an additional 1.0-second for sign acquisition after it becomes legible, and to achieve a reasonable level of acuity reserve, an appropriate legibility distance for signs displaying one word would be 2.5 seconds, two to three words would be 4.0 seconds, and four to eight words would be 6.0 seconds. (Translating that to distance at 55 mph would require these signs to be legible at 200, 325, 485 feet, respectively.) The United States Sign Council (USSC, 2003) offers guidelines designed to assist in quantifying the legibility factors discussed above and simplifying the process for computing the size of the average static commercial sign in a motorist oriented environment. Unfortunately, no research or standards has yet to address the speed at which motorists can assimilate the type of dynamic television -style graphics that EMCs are capable of displaying. How large should EMC letters be? In a study of CMS for the FHWA, Garvey and Mace (1996) reported that letter height has the greatest impact on the distance at which a sign can be read. Unlike other critical sign visibility variables, such as contrast and luminance, legibility distance continues to improve with increases in letter height; there is no practical asymptote. There are, however, real world limitations on 5 sign size, and there is also research that reports optimum letter heights for fastest normal reading • speeds above which performance declines (Raasch and Rubin, 1993). Legibility Index (LI) is a measure of the furthest distance at which a sign can be read as a function of letter size, and in English units is expressed in feet per inch of letter height (ft/in). In the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices the FHWA uses a legibility index of 40 where each inch of letter height is assumed to provide 40 feet of legibility distance (a sign with 12 inch tall letters would be legible 480 feet away). The MUTCD does mention, however, that "Some research indicates that a ratio of one inch of letter height per 33 feet of legibility distance could be beneficial." (USDOT, 2003). Some of those research results were based on the outcomes of several roadway evaluations of CMS. For example, Upchurch, et al. (1992) and Garvey and Mace (1996) found that LIs for CMS on the order of 35 Win would accommodate "average" older and younger observers. Indeed, Garvey and Mace found that even larger letters might be required to accommodate all drivers as LIs dropped to 22 for the bottom 15 percent of younger drivers and 17 for the poorest performing 15 percent of older drivers. In a study of static commercial sign legibility conducted under "real world" conditions, Zineddin, et al. (2005) confirmed these findings and actually found that in certain high complexity sites, the LI dropped to as low as 7 Win. In a study of CMS visibility, Colomb, et al. (1991) wrote that words on an 80 mph (117 ft/sec) roadway should have a letter height of 16 inches, as the authors contend that this would allow seven words to be read before the driver passed the sign. This is consistent with the review of reading time and LI discussed above (if a LI of 35 is used for the 16 inch letters, then legibility distance would be 560 feet, and at 117 ft/sec this would allow 4.8 seconds to read the sign, a time that falls between the 4.0 seconds to read three words and the 6.0 seconds to read four to eight words). Other research that has specifically evaluated CMS contends that "under perfect conditions, a driver with 20/20 vision traveling during the day at 62 mph on a freeway reading 14-in letters has about nine seconds during which sign text is legible" (Mast and Ballas, 1976 in CTC & Associates, 2003). The MUTCD states that CMS letters should be a minimum of 10.6 inches and increased to 18 inches if speeds are greater than 55 mph. Research conducted on static outdoor advertising content has yielded similar results. Coetzee (2003) reported that three-foot high text should be legible at about 1,600 feet (an LI of about 44). This author wrote that text height should be between 12 inches and three feet, as the • larger number appropriately restricts sign viewing to approximately 1,600 feet and the smaller C1 • number ensures that the sign can be read before the viewing angle is too large for the driver to comfortably read the sign. • Using "bit" values defined by the South African Government where: • Words up to 8 letters = 1 bit, • Words > 8 letters = 2 bits, • Numbers to 4 digits = 0.5 bits, • Numbers 5-8 digits = 1 bit, • Symbol/Abbreviation = 0.5 bits, and • Logo/graphics = 2 bits, Coetzee (2003) calculated typical reading times for static outdoor advertisement as a function of amount of information and level of distraction (D) for two roadway complexities (Table 1). This author recommended a maximum of 12 bits of information for signs with about 1500 feet of legibility distance. Table 1. Typical reading times for outdoor advertising signs N (bits) T (D=1.25) T (D=1.5) 3 0.9 sec 1.1 sec 6 2.1 sec 2.6 sec 8 2.9 sec 3.5 sec 12 4.5 sec 5.4 sec People read words and sentences, not letters! Signs use words, sentences, phrases, and images, not merely strings of letters. Word legibility introduces cognitive factors quantitatively and qualitatively different from those posed by letters (Zwahlen, et al. 1995). Static guide sign research shows that familiar word recognition is based more on global features, such as the overall shape or "footprint" of a word (Garvey, et al., 1998) rather than individual letter characteristics. As a result, sign legibility distances are longer than would be predicted by visual acuity alone (Kuhn, et al., 1998). This is known as the word superiority effect (for a review see Zineddin, 2001). Sentence reading takes this a step further as • mentioned by Legge, et al. (1997) who stated that reading speed for words in sentences could be faster than for single words because of the "predictability of the words in sentences." Fine, et al. (1997) suggested that this was due in part to the additional information provided by syntactic and Vl semantic sentence content. Because of these cognitive components, sign message recognition so does not require the ability to discriminate all content elements (e.g., every stroke of a letter or even all the letters in a word, or words in a sentence or phrase) for correct message identification to occur (Proffitt, et al., 1998). What about color? Garvey and Mace (1996) studied CMS with red, white, and yellow elements and found no significant difference in legibility. These researchers found that color produced no difference in legibility distance that could not be accounted for by luminance, luminous contrast, or contrast orientation between signs using the following color combinations: white/green, black/white, black/orange, black/yellow, and black/red. This is consistent with the findings of research on computer displays (Pastoor, 1990). Pastoor's research findings indicate that if appropriate luminance contrast, color contrast, and luminance levels are maintained, the choice of specific colors for background and text does not affect legibility distance. What about font? Garvey, et al. (1997, 1998, 2001) and Garvey, Zineddin, and Pietrucha (2001) have demonstrated that font can have a dramatic affect on standard highway sign legibility and on large format letter legibility. They demonstrated that specific fonts could have superior recognition and legibility indices when compared to other fonts using letters of the same height. Yager, et al. (1998) concluded that font can have an effect on reading speed when the letter heights and luminance contrast are close to threshold; they went on to state, "Until systematic comprehensive studies are done, choices of font characteristics ... will depend on uninformed biases and, perhaps, aesthetic considerations rather than optimization of performance." What about letter, word, and line spacing? Garvey and Mace (1996) tested inter -letter and inter -word spacing in computer simulated matrix (e.g., 50) CMS words and found that inter -letter spacing equal to 1/7 capital letter height produced the poorest results. They recommended a minimum spacing of 3/7th letter height. Dudek (1991), in summarizing European CMS standards, wrote that the desirable inter -character • spacing is 2/7th letter height and line spacing is 4/7th letter height. Mace, et al. (1996) found an N. • inter -line spacing of 75 percent of capital letter height to be best for three -line static standard highway signs. Woodson (1993) reported that inter -letter static sign spacing should be between 25 and 50 percent of capital letter height and inter -word spacing should be from 75 to 100 percent of letter height (in Wourms, et al., 2001). Is lowercase more legible than uppercase? Research by Garvey, et al. (1997, 1998) demonstrated that for static highway signs words composed of lowercase letters with a lead capital letter (i.e., mixed case) are more visible (by 12 to 15 percent) than words composed of only uppercase letters in terms of recognition of the word. They also found that all uppercase and mixed case words perform equally well for word legibility, where some individual letter reading may be required. The publication, "Passenger Information Services: A Guidebook for Transit Systems" stated that for CMS uppercase letters should be used for destinations and other short messages, and mixed case should be used for "long legends and instructions." The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (2000) state, "Destination information shall not be written in capital letters only" and that "the use of • both upper and lowercase text helps ensure that words that are not completely clear and legible to people with a degree of vision impairment or learning disability are still identifiable through shape recognition of the word." (in Wourms, et al., 2001). Forbes, et al. (1950) conducted perhaps the definitive study on the difference in static traffic sign legibility between text depicted in all uppercase letters and that shown in mixed case. Forbes, et al. (1950) found a significant improvement in legibility distance with mixed case words versus all uppercase. Garvey, et al. (1997) replicated this result with new sign materials, a different font, and older observers. As mentioned above, Garvey and his colleagues found a 12 to 15 percent increase in legibility distance with mixed -case text under daytime and nighttime conditions. It must be understood, however, that these results were obtained with a recognition task. That -is, the observers knew what words they were looking for. In instances where observers do not know the text they are looking for, improvements with mixed case are not evident (Forbes, et al., 1950; Mace, et al., 1994; and Garvey, et al., 1997). • Does contrast orientation (or polarity) have an effect? Positive contrast signs have light copy on dark backgrounds and negative contrast signs have dark copy on light backgrounds. Garvey and Mace (1996) reported a 29 percent improvement in 9 nighttime CMS legibility distance with positive versus negative contrast messages. Iannuzziello • (2001) also recommended positive contrast for general transit signage. The research on this issue is clear•, with the possible exception of tight intercharacter spacing on static highway signs (Case, et al., 1952), positive -contrast provides greater legibility distances than negative -contrast. As far back as 1955, laboratory research by Allen and Straub found that white -on -black static highway signs provided longer legibility distances than black -on white signs. Allen, et al. (1967) replicated these results in the field. Garvey and Mace (1996) extended these results in their CMS research with the addition of orange, yellow, and green signs where positive -contrast signs resulted in improvements in legibility of about 30 percent over negative -contrast signs. Are symbols better than text? In a study of static traffic sign comprehension speed, Ellis and Dewar (1979) found symbolic signs to outperform those with text messages. These researchers also discovered that symbolic signs were less susceptible to glare than text signs. In a 1975 visibility study, Jacobs and his colleagues assessed the legibility distance of almost 50 highway sign symbols and their text • counterparts. These researchers found that in the majority of cases, the legibility distances for the symbols were twice that of the text signs. Kline and his colleagues' (1990 and 1993) replicated this finding for a smaller set of symbols using young, middle-aged, and older observers. Kline's research also described a technique to optimize symbol legibility called recursive blurring (Figure 1). The technique results in symbols designed to "maximize contour size and contour separation." In other words, optimized symbols or logos will have elements that are large enough to be seen from a distance and spaces between the elements wide enough to reduce blurring between elements. • 10 • C tiginal 18 16 14 12 + 1 + • $vie 10 8 6 4 2 Figure 1. Example of recursive blurring to evaluate symbol visibility (Shieber, 1998). The literature clearly indicates that, from a visibility standpoint, symbols are superior to text. Symbols, however, require a different kind of comprehension than words. Symbol meaning is either understood intuitively or learned. Although traffic sign experts and traffic engineers agree that understandability is the most important factor in symbol design (Dewar, 1988), other research has shown that what is intuitive to designers is not always intuitive to drivers, and that teaching observers the meaning of more abstract symbols is frequently unsuccessful. Do abbreviations work? Proffitt, et al. (1998) wrote that abbreviations take about four times as long to read as words spelled out completely. If abbreviations are absolutely necessary due to sign size constraints, they recommend two techniques: • Truncation — where the end of the word is removed, • Contraction — where, except for the first letter and first vowel, the vowels and the letters h, w, and y are removed. Hutchingson and Dudek (1983) discussed three abbreviation strategies for use on CMS: • Key Consonants — similar to Proffitt's contraction method, • • First Syllable — similar to Proffitt's truncation method, 11 • First Letter — only to be used in special cases such as N, S, E, and W for the cardinal • directions. Hutchingson and Dudek recommended using the Key Consonant technique on words with five to seven letters (for example, Frwy for Freeway) and the First Syllable method for words with nine or more letters (for example, Cond for Condition); however, this technique should not be used if the first syllable is in itself a new word. Proffitt, et al. (1998) reported that readers preferred contraction to truncation. Both groups of researchers state that abbreviations are to be used only as a last resort if limitations in sign size demand it, as abbreviations increase the possibility of incorrect sign interpretation. Further complicating the issue, Durkop and Dudek (2001) found that the comprehension of abbreviations can be influenced by driver age, geographic location, and education level. Alternate suggestions to deal with the limitations inherent in using abbreviations include selecting a shorter synonym for the abbreviated word, reducing letter size, reducing message length, and increasing sign size. What is the impact of sign brightness? In the MUTCD, the FHWA states, "Portable Changeable Message signs shall automatically adjust their brightness under varying light conditions, to maintain legibility" (USDOT, 2003). Some manufacturers recommend a 50 percent voltage reduction from daytime to nighttime conditions, while others suggest that at night signs should be dimmed to 20 percent of daytime brightness. In a study of CMS legibility for the FHWA, Garvey and Mace (1996) made more specific photometric recommendations based on human factors research with older and younger drivers. These researchers recommended a nighttime luminance of 30 candelas per square meter (cd/rn), and 1000 Cd/m2 for bright daytime viewing. They found, however, that as subjects' visual acuity worsened, more light was needed to achieve equivalent performance. Dudek's (1991) nighttime luminance recommendation was from 30 to 230 cd/m2. The European highway community has been attempting to derive standard optical test methods for CMS for decades, but they have been slowed down by, among other factors, rapidly changing technology (Grahame Cheek, European Standards body (CEN), March 8, 2002: personal communication). Currently, there are no photometric standards to specify what aspect of the sign should be measured (for a discussion on the issues, see Garvey and Mace, 1996; or Lewis, 2000). • 12 • How about contrast? Combining the results of six research efforts on static traffic sign legibility, Sivak and Olson (1985) derived a recommended contrast ratio of 12:1 for positive contrast signs (where sign copy is 12 times brighter than sign background). Staplin, et al. (1997) expanded this to between 4:1 and 50:1. Colomb and Hubert (1991) found improvements in daytime legibility of CMS to level off between 8 and 20 percent contrast (defined as the difference between the luminance of the letters and the background, divided by the luminance of the background). Legge, et al. (1997) found a reduction in reading speeds at contrast levels below 10 percent. Stainforth and Kniveton (1996) reported that a generally accepted luminance contrast ratio for CMS is 10:1. Dudek (1991) stated that for CMS, a contrast ratio between 8:1 and 12:1 should be used for light emitting technologies (e.g., LEDs) and 40 percent daytime and 50 percent nighttime contrast for light reflecting technologies. The "Passenger Information Services: A Guidebook for Transit Systems" recommends 70 percent contrast for all signs (Wourms, et al., 2001). How should long sign messages be displayed? (Paging and Streaming) • EMCs are capable of presenting more information than will fit on a single static screen or display. For CMS, the MUTCD states "Techniques of message display such as fading, exploding, dissolving, or moving messages shall not be used" (USDOT, 2003), but commercial EMCs are not subject to these regulations. While there is no research on fully dynamic video display on signs, there is information in the literature on dynamically displayed text that might apply to some EMC applications. If more than a single screen of information is required, the messages must be displayed in some dynamic format, either by paging or by some form of scrolling or streaming. Paging means that the information is static, but a number of pages of information are shown sequentially to convey the entire message. Scrolling typically denotes that the text is moving down the sign from the top to the bottom. Streaming refers to text that moves across the sign from the right to the left. Streaming is the method used most frequently with single line message boards. Highway CMS nearly exclusively use paging because, "The text of the messages shall not scroll or travel horizontally or vertically across the face of the sign" (USDOT, 2003). • In evaluating LED "next -stop" CMS on buses, Bentzen and Easton (1996) found that, "static messages were clearly superior to streaming messages." However, these researchers reported that when the message was too large to fit on a single static page, streaming messages 13 outperformed paging messages. On the other hand, Kang and Muter (1989) reported earlier • research (Sekey and Tietz, 1982) that found reading speed to be slower for constant scrolling (also known as "Times Square" presentation) than either irregular scrolling ("saccadic") or page mode. However, their own research supports that of Bentzen and Easton (1996), and Kang and Muter concluded that constant scrolling works at least as well as static techniques and is preferred by readers. A study sponsored by the Transportation Management Center Pooled -Fund Study (http://tmcpfs.ops.f iwa.dot. og v/cfprojects/new search.cfm?new=0) titled Impacts of Dynamically Displaying Messages on Changeable Message Signs is underway to address some of these issues. The objective of the research is to "Conduct human factors studies to determine the effects of dynamically displaying messages on CMSs including at a minimum: a) flashing an entire one -frame message; b) flashing one line/word of a one -frame message; and c) alternating text on one line of a two -or -more -line CMS while keeping the other line(s) of text constant on the second frame of the message." The final report is scheduled for release in July of 2005. How fast should sign information move? • How long a static message should be displayed and how fast a dynamic message should stream across the sign is mainly a function of the target audience's reading rate. As mentioned earlier, Proffitt, et al. (1998) found the average adult reading rate to be about 250 words per minute. Kang and Muter (1989) put the rate at 280 wpm for college students. There are numerous and varied recommendations regarding both EMC message duration and speed. It has been recommended that, "a line of text should be displayed for at least ten seconds, preferably a little longer." (ECMT, 1999), and there is Dudek's 1991 recommended of a minimum exposure time for CMS of "one second per short word... or two seconds per unit of information" for use with unfamiliar observers as discussed earlier. Harris and Whitney (1993) wrote that if scrolling is used, information should be left on the screen for at least twice the normal reading time. Barham, et al. (1994) found a fixed time of about 10 seconds was needed to avoid confusion when a scrolled message is used. In light of this finding, they recommended that the duration of message displays should be from 10 to 20 seconds (in Wourms, et al., 2001). Joffee (1995) recommended a display time of 1.6 seconds when a single line CMS must display multiple pages of information. Finally, Bentzen and Easton (1996) evaluated the effect of streaming rates, • defined as the length of time any given pixel is in view from when it appears on the right of the 14 • sign to the time it disappears on the left side. These researchers found 2.75 and 2.56 second streaming rates to be optimal for single word CMS messages. They reported that a streaming rate of 3.5 seconds was so slow as to appear to flicker and a streaming rate of 1.5 seconds was too fast for subjects to consistently read the message. WHAT ARE THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF EMCs? For any sign to be useful it must be conspicuous; that is, it must have a high probability of being detected by its target audience. All highway signs, including EMCs, are therefore designed to attract driver attention. Although there is little scientific evidence to support claims that EMCs and outdoor advertising signs in general have a negative impact on road safety, it is often stated that these signs compete with basic driving demands for driver attention, thereby distracting drivers from the safe operation of their vehicles. Distinctions, however, must be drawn between the terms, "attraction," "distraction," and "dangerous distraction." The term distraction can be defined as attracting attention away from some primary task. Simply put, the primary driving task is to safely maneuver the vehicle from ispoint a to point b. Anything that distracts a vehicle operator to a degree that results in hazardous driving behavior is a dangerous distraction (e.g., cellular phones). When used to describe commercial signs, the term distraction is seen as synonymous with the creation of a traffic hazard. The fact that drivers pay attention to commercial signs is not in dispute, the issue is whether this attention has a negative impact on driving performance. Eye Movement Research Four driver eye movement studies were recently conducted to evaluate driver behavior in the presence of commercial signs; two of these included off -premise EMCs. Young (2004) reported the results of a 1999 eye movement study where 50 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 70 were driven over a 30-mile course with 28 static billboards. The subjects were seated in the vehicle's passenger seat. Young stated that 74 percent of the billboards were seen and 48 percent were read. Lee, et al. (2003) evaluated the eye movements and driving behavior of 36 younger and is older drivers as they drove a 35-mile loop in Charlotte, NC, USA. The test route included sections with billboards (static only), others with just traffic signs, and others with neither. Thirty billboard passes were evaluated. There was no change in speed variability or lateral 15 position within the lane (measures of driver inattentiveness) associated with outdoor advertising. • The researchers concluded, "The presence of billboards does not cause a measurable change in driver behavior, in terms of visual behavior, speed maintenance, or lane keeping." Beijer (2004) conducted a study to evaluate the "possible distracting effect on driver [eye] scanning behavior of roadside advertisements." The study employed 25 subjects between 25 and 50 years of age who drove four miles of a Toronto, Canada expressway and were exposed to 37 commercial signs. A head mounted infrared eye tracking device was used (EL -MAR Vision 2000). Five on- and off -premise EMCs displaying moving text and images were included in the study. The EMCs and other active signs (roller bar and scrolling text) elicited significantly more and longer glances than did the static billboards. The EMCs had the greatest number of "long glance durations" (greater than 0.75 seconds) and five times as many long glances as static billboards. As previous studies using only static billboards did not find significant distraction (e.g., Lee, et al., 2003), Beijer concluded that "active advertising signs may result in greater distraction than past studies of the effect of commercial signing might indicate." However, Beijer admitted that sign placement was not controlled in the study and that the more expensive EMCs and other is active signs were generally located closer to the center of the driver's visual field increasing the likelihood of detection and longer glance duration as these researchers reported that "An average of 79.5 percent of glances were within ten degrees of center and 97.6 percent were within 25 degrees." Smiley, et al. (2004) evaluated the effect of outdoor advertising on eye movements using the same apparatus as Beijer. This study was specifically aimed at addressing the effects of on - and off -premise EMCs. Sixteen subjects, age 25 to 50, drove through four downtown intersections (three with EMCs) and a section of urban expressway in Toronto, Canada along which a single EMC was mounted. In summarizing the eye movement behavior, the authors stated, "Glances at advertising, static billboards or video signs [EMCs], constituted only 1.5 percent of total glances. Mean glance durations were short — generally between 1/5 and 3/5 of a second." Overall, 45 percent of the subjects looked at the four EMCs evaluated in this research. At the intersections, 48 percent of subjects looked at the EMCs, while on the expressway this fell to 36 percent. Twenty-five percent of EMC glances were longer than 0.75 seconds in duration, and 73 percent were within 20 degrees of the subjects' line of sight. The researchers wrote, "In • some cases glances at [EMCs] were made unsafely, that is, at short headways, for long durations 16 and at large angles off the line of sight." Overall however, these researchers concluded that, "No evidence was found that glances at video signs [EMCs] reduced the proportion of glances at traffic signs or signals" and there was no evidence that the EMCs reduced subject detection of cyclists or pedestrians. Driver attention in the presence of static commercial signs Three studies conducted in the 1970s evaluated the possible effect of commercial signs on driver attention. As the studies were conducted before EMC signs were available, the research focused on static signs. In their research on distraction by irrelevant information, Johnston and Cole (1976) presented observers with 240 "likely to distract" commercial signs. These researchers concluded, "These experiments have demonstrated that the human operator has the capacity to shed irrelevant information." They went further to state that "the general effect of distraction ... does not represent a physiological phenomenon against which the operator has no defense." Two field studies (Tindall, 1977; and Sanderson, 1974; in Andreassen, 1985) support the conclusions from Johnston and Cole's laboratory research. Tindall found that drivers are more likely to ignore signs that are not relevant to the driving task and more likely to attend to signs that have a direct effect on driving performance. Sanderson reported that when a commercial sign was placed among traffic signs, drivers have significantly greater recall of the traffic signs than of the commercial signs. Although they did not evaluate EMCs specifically, in a recent study of driver distraction conducted for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (Stuffs, et' al., 2003), researchers evaluated national (U.S.) and state (North Carolina) crash data and concluded that while "driver inattention is a major contributor to highway crashes ... the search appears to suggest that some items — such as CB radios, billboards, and temperature controls — are not significant distractions." Specifically, out of two years of national narrative data from 1997 and 1998, only eight of 332 and nine of 412 crashes respectively involving driver distraction were attributed to "other distractions" that included "looking outside vehicle (in rear view mirror, at traffic, at road signs, in store window, for gas station, for parking space, for business, etc)." North Carolina narrative data were evaluated for 1998, and no crashes were associated with drivers being distracted by billboards. However the study (Stutts, et al., 2003) did mention that "those ages 65 and older • were more likely to have been distracted by objects and events outside the vehicle (other vehicles, signs, animals, etc.) and by other (unspecified) distractions." 17 In an evaluation of literature on driver distraction by items external to the vehicle, • Wallace (2003a) looked at the possible impact of static billboards. He concluded, "It is still not proven whether billboards attract attention from driving or not. Certainly there is a large amount of scientific evidence suggesting they might under certain circumstances, and a few suggestive correlation and laboratory studies suggesting they do. However all the studies are flawed: either because they are correlation studies, because they are too small scale to draw conclusions from, or because of issues of ecological validity." Wallace went on to state, "Nevertheless the case for arguing that visual `clutter' at junctions (associated with billboards and signs) can lead to unsafe driving is very strong. However more research is needed on specific cases to demonstrate the extent of the effect." Driver attention in the presence of EMCs The goal of a recent publication by the FHWA (FHWA, 2001) was to "review the literature on the safety implications of electronic billboards [EMCs], and to identify knowledge gaps in the findings." Major findings of this research include: • • A 1994 Wisconsin DOT Report found increases in rear end and sideswipe crash rates (from 21 to 36 percent depending on the direction of traffic) with the introduction of a variable message advertising sign that changed images at a rate of 12 per minute. Six years of crash data were evaluated, three before the 1984 sign installation and three after. • Nevada, Utah, Texas, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts "reported no evidence of increased traffic safety problems after the installation of electronic information displays in their city centers and along their highways." • "In most instances, researchers were not able to verify that an [EMC] was a major factor in causing a crash." • "At this point, it appears that there is no effective technique or method appropriate for evaluating the safety effects of [EMCs] on driver attention or distraction." Crashes in the presence of static commercial signs . Several older studies attempted to evaluate the relationship between traffic accidents and static commercial signs. All of these studies have the difficult task of attempting to associate accident 18 causation with a single factor. Johnston and Cole (1976) called accidents "multi -factorial" and stated, "Just as it is difficult to conclude that roadside advertising contributes significantly to an increase in accident rates, it is equally difficult to assert with confidence that it makes no contribution whatsoever." In one of the earliest research efforts exploring the relationship between collisions and static commercial signs, Rykken (1951) reported that a preliminary study of approximately 170 miles of Minnesota roadway found no relationship between the presence of commercial signs and accident occurrence. This researcher went further and implied that long roadway sections with no advertising might actually result in driver fatigue and excessive speed. Rykken qualified his results, however, by stating that an accident analysis is only as good as the accident reports, and that these reports "...may not be sufficiently accurate nor adequate to completely fix the cause of many accidents." Rusch (1951) published an accident analysis study aimed at determining the safety impact of static roadside advertisements. The author concluded that "inattention" and "misdirected attention" were the main causes of an increased number of accidents in high - advertising and roadside business areas and attributed this inattention to advertising signs. However, in a 1985 synthesis of the literature on traffic accidents and advertising signs, Andreassen questioned the results of Rusch's correlational study, stating that the study "does not prove anything about the effect of advertising signs on accident occurrence." Andreassen wrote that any number of other factors might have contributed to the accident increase. In addition to the Rusch report, Andreassen (1985) evaluated the results of five other studies that examined the relationship between advertising signs and accidents. He reported that two of the studies found a positive correlation and three found no relationship. He stated that the studies reporting positive results were "discredited by subsequent analysis." Andreassen's final conclusion was that "There is no current evidence to say that advertising signs, in general, are causing traffic accidents." In a recent review of the topic Coetzee (2003) similarly concluded that although there is some reason to believe that billboards might result in higher accident rates, "limited empirical proof of advertisements resulting in more accidents exist." Tantala and Tantala (2005) recently conducted a correlational analysis that evaluated the relationship between crashes occurring on a section of the New Jersey Turnpike and placement of advertising signs. Data on 22,971 crashes from 1998 to 2001 were used in the evaluation. There were 123 static on -premise and off -premise advertising signs on the test section of the 19 turnpike used in this research. The analyses revealed "extremely weak" (from 0.1 to 0.2) 40 correlations between sign density and crashes, and a near zero to slightly negative correlation between crashes and sign proximity (that is, crashes were not more likely to occur near signs). Given the extremely low correlations, the researchers concluded that neither the proximity nor the density of commercial signs were statistically associated with increases in the number of roadway crashes. Crashes in the presence of EMCs As part of the research project discussed above, Tantala and Tantala (2005) conducted a second accident analysis that evaluated the "before -after" effect installing a single EMC. The on - premise EMC was mounted at an intersection in Bucks County, PA on U.S. Business Route 1. A portion of the sign included "varied aspects of simulated movement including scrolling, wipe -on, wipe -off, blending, and rapid copy variations involving different messages in a constantly changing mode of operation." Crash data were collected for one year before and one year after the January 2002 sign installation. A total of 68 accidents took place in 2001 and 60 accidents occurred in 2002. As the traffic volume increased by 5.3 percent during this, time period, this • represents a decrease in crash rate of 16 percent. The researchers concluded that in the specific instance evaluated in their study, the EMC did not affect traffic crash rate: "The results of this study conclude that advertising signs have no statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. These analyses also suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists." However, they also suggest that more sign locations and more crash data over a greater period of time should be evaluated in future research. The data from Smiley, et al.'s 2004 research discussed previously were reanalyzed to look specifically at the potential roadway safety effects of EMCs (Smiley, et al., 2005). In addition to the driver eye movement behavior reported in Smiley, et al. 2004, the 2005 report looked at crashes before and after EMC sign installation, contained an evaluation of driver behavior in the presence and absence of EMCs, and included a survey of road user perception of the potential safety impact of these signs. Inappropriate braking, lateral lane position, and "the time it took for the 5th vehicle in a queue to cross the stop line after the commencement of green" (a measure of driver attention • while waiting at a red signal) were recorded at three intersections where EMCs were located. The EMCs were visible from two of the four approaches to each intersection. At one 20 • intersection there was an increase in inappropriate braking on the EMC approaches compared to the non-EMC approaches, but no change in lateral position or time to cross the stop line. No effect of EMCs was found on any of the three variables tested at the other two intersections. Vehicle speed and spacing between vehicles were recorded before and after sign installation on a section of expressway from which an EMC was visible. The results of this analysis were inconclusive. Also, before and after sign installation crash data were evaluated at each of the three intersection sites and the expressway location. Three to four years of before crash data and one to two years of after data were included in the analyses. Given the small number of collisions at the intersection sites, no significant change in crashes was found to be associated with the installation of the EMCs. The expressway evaluation also resulted in non- significant changes in crashes associated with the installation of an EMC. Despite these findings, a public survey of 152 roadway users conducted by Smiley, et al. (2005) had the following results: • 65 percent said EMCs have a negative effect on driver attention, • • 59 percent said, as a driver, their attention is drawn to EMCs in downtown locations, and 49 percent of that group indicated a negative effect on driving safety, • 59 percent said; as a driver, their attention is drawn to these signs on expressways, and 44 percent of that group indicated a negative effect on driving safety, • 86 percent of subjects said there should be restrictions on EMCs in the interest of traffic safety, and 73 percent of that group said that video signs should not be placed at intersections and 62 percent of the group favoring restrictions said that video signs should not be placed on highways, • 6 percent reported experiencing near collisions as a result of an EMC, • 1.3 percent had experienced rear -end collisions that they associated with video advertising signs, and • On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all distracting, 7 = very distracting to drivers) "video advertising signs were rated at 3.7, higher than billboards (2.1), but close to the same as road construction (4.0), and lower than in -car cell phone use (5.6) in terms of distraction." In the conclusion of their report, Smiley and her colleagues (2005) stated, "based on the 4 studies reported on in this paper, and the amalgamation with the results of an earlier study of eye 21 movements for a video sign on the Gardiner Expressway it cannot be concluded at this time that • video advertising signs are either safe or unsafe." They suggested that the potential impact on traffic safety is highly sign- and location -dependant and that some signs mounted in some locations may very well negatively impact traffic safety, while others will not. They recommended that more research be conducted with larger crash data sets to evaluate the potential impact on safety, and more eye movement studies should be conducted to "determine design and placement factors which keep driver distraction to a minimum." EMC ZONING REGULATIONS The BPS Outdoor Advertising website reports that 24 percent of U.S. states prohibit moving or animated signs and that 29 percent have "timing limits" on EMCs (BPS Outdoor, 2004). Through interviews with state DOTs, review of DOT websites, and a meeting with members of the National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies' (NAHBA), information from 44 states were evaluated (FHWA, 2001). The conclusion was that "common billboard guidelines governing [EMCs]... do not exist." A consistent feature among the guidelines, however, is the prohibition of signs that have flashing, intermittent, or moving lights. • Wisconsin is very specific in delineating the acceptable use of EMCs and its requirements are representative of other states that have strict EMC codes (CTC & Associates, 2003): • No message may be displayed for less than one-half second; • No message may be repeated at intervals of less than two seconds; • No segmented message may last longer than 10 seconds; • No traveling message may travel at a rate slower than 16 light columns per second or faster than 32 columns per second; and • No variable message sign lamp may be illuminated to a degree of brightness that is greater than necessary for adequate visibility. WHAT ARE THE PRESSING EMC RESEARCH NEEDS? Given that EMCs are used for so many purposes, and the application of EMCs is so varied, there is appears to be a pressing need to develop a set of guidelines that would provide EMC designers, 22 manufacturers, and users with some needed direction in how to use these signs most effectively. Many of the design elements for EMCs are listed in Table 2. While this list is not exhaustive, it does represent most of the issues that must be considered before designing, fabricating, and placing an EMC. • • Table 2. EMC Design Elements. • Target Audience o Drivers o Passengers o Non -occupants • Content o Message ■ Text ■ Symbols ■ Moving Image o Use of Color • Placement o Location o Number of Signs o Orientation o Mounting Height o Roadway Offset • Conspicuity • Legibility o Luminance/Contrast o Letter Height o Font o Kerning o Negative Space o Words per Line o Lines per Page o Pages per Message o Message Motion (e.g., scrolling, streaming, dissolves) o Message Duration (minima and maxima) o Negative Duration (minima and maxima) • Size o Maximum Dimensions o Minimum Dimensions • Understanding/Comprehension • Retention • Regulations o Federal o State o Local • Safety o Distraction o Accident Analysis o Public Acceptance o Regulator Acceptance 23 EMC designers must first consider what the sign is to be used for. Once the purpose of • the sign has been established, the target audience can be identified. As the target audience becomes known, the message content should begin to evolve. Will the sign be used to direct drivers to a driveway entrance? Is the sign promoting a special event taking place at a later date that is of interest to the general public? Or is it merely a general advertisement of a product or service? After identifying a target audience and formulating the message content, placement issues such as location, the number of signs, the orientation of the signs, the mounting height, and lateral offset can be addressed. After the placement has been established, conspicuity and visibility issues should come into play. Are the sign viewers fixed or moving relative to the sign? How fast are they moving? Answers to these questions will begin to detail elements such as contrast values, letter heights, lines of text, numbers of panels, and sign size. To assess the effectiveness of the sign, an evaluation of whether the message is legible and understood and retained by the target audience should be conducted. All through the design process the EMC should be evaluated in terms of compliance with all applicable regulations. Lastly, there should be some assurance that the EMC will not compromise the safety of the general public. • One should also keep in mind that EMCs represent a very special case of sign viewing in that the people seeing the sign can be moving and the images on the sign can be moving. This case is somewhat unprecedented in visual and cognitive research. Therefore, by examining the nature of the design elements, along with what is known (and not known) about user performance, while keeping in mind the special nature of the tasks associated with viewing EMCs, the following general recommendations regarding research can be made. Viewing a dynamic sign from a moving vehicle It would seem that the single most pressing need for EMC designers is to have more information about how drivers view a dynamic sign from a moving vehicle. As mentioned above, there is no directly relevant research in this area related to commercial signs. Therefore, it would be valuable to have more information about nearly every design element related to sign visibility in the context of a moving viewer looking at a sign with a dynamic image. (For purposes of discussion, the term "changing" will be used to denote an image that is static on a single panel, but the panel changes on or off as part of a multiple panel message, the term "moving" denotes • that the image is moving on the individual panel.) 24 • Letter Height — What is the appropriate letter size (i.e., height) for a driver to view a changing message? This information could be derived using analytical methods that simulate a vehicle approaching an EMC sign at a certain speed given the number of panels in the message. What is the appropriate letter size for a driver to view a moving message? Font — What effect would the selection of a specific font have on the selection of letter height? In a static viewing condition, this is known somewhat. In a dynamic viewing condition, this is unknown. Kerning = There are guidelines for spacing the letters, within a specified font, used to form the words in a static message; however, whether these kerning values are still valid under dynamic conditions is not known. Negative Space — Although the MUTCD does address the issue in the form of a requirement for copy placement and spacing on highway guide signs, information on this topic for dynamic sign messages is non-existent. Words per Line — There is limited information on the maximum numbers of words that can be read and understood for a single line of text on a static sign. As with many of the other design elements, there is no information about this for dynamic signs. Lines per Page — While three lines of text seem to be optimal on static signs, there is no corresponding information regarding this design element for dynamic signs. For a moving message, issues such as order and speed of presentation and presentation duration of each line would have to be considered. Pages per Message — The number of pages are limited by the legibility thresholds and the duration of the presentation. The time the driver has to read a message is dependent on how far from the sign reading can begin, and how long the sign is visible given how fast the vehicle, in which the driver is traveling, is moving. This is similar to the issues with letter height discussed above in that an analytical approach could be used to provide design guidance, but this would only apply to changing and not moving messages. Message Motion — How the message "comes on to" and "leaves" the EMC will influence a driver's ability to read and understand the message. Scrolling, streaming, and screen dissolves will increase the time needed by the driver to perform this task; however, very little is known about how great this increase in time actually is. • Message Duration/Negative Duration — The length of time that the message is presented, whether it be as part of a changing message or a moving message is very important 25 relative to the driver reading and understanding a particular message. Further, the amount of • negative duration (i.e., blank screen time) is also important for successful completion of this task. There is very little known about these issues. Combination of Visual Design Elements — Each of the issues discussed above is further complicated when considered in conjunction with other design elements. For example, letter height is influenced by font selection. Message duration and negative duration will depend on font and/or letter height. Lines per page and pages per message could be affected by message motion and duration. Regulations and Safety EMC designers, manufacturers, and operators should be aware of relevant regulations and public sector official's and private citizen's safety concerns. As cited earlier in the report, Wisconsin has very specific requirements regarding the design of EMCs (CTC & Associates, 2003). It is likely that there are other relevant national, state, and local regulations governing EMC design and use. The EMC community would benefit from knowing what types of controls have already been established in this area. Further, a delineation of specific quantitative data regarding • regulations (maximums and minimums) for certain design elements would be useful to EMC designers. This report has also demonstrated, in discussions in prior sections, that while collision data are important, safety goes beyond accident studies. Perceptions by government regulators and private citizens can influence the regulatory climate discussed above. The FHWA memorandum stating that, "[CMS] can convey only a limited amount of information and may not be the safest or most effective method in many cases" or the study by Smiley and her colleagues (2005) finding that 86 percent of a group of 152 road users said that there should be restrictions on EMCs in the interest of traffic safety, and 73 percent of that group said that video signs should not be placed at intersections and 62 percent of the group who favored restrictions said that video signs should not be placed on highways, demonstrates that safety in not just a matter of numbers but also one of individual perceptions. As with the visual design elements, it would be useful to have more information in some of these areas too. in literature • Regulations — Given that the limited number of regulations uncovered the review show some very specific detail related to the operation of EMCs (e.g., minimum message 26 display times, maximum display times for multiple panel messages), there is a need for further research into issues such as: What level of government should/does control EMCs? When specific values are used what are they based on? And if regulations are necessary, what would be a good model set of regulations (i.e., design guidelines)? Qualitative Safety — The perceived safety of anything is usually a matter of perceived risk and perceived consequences. This paradigm works well unless there is a serious mismatch between the perceived risks and consequences and the actual risks and consequences. Before embarking on a research program dealing with quantitative safety measures, it is paramount to have some understanding of what the perceptions of government regulators and the general public are regarding of EMCs. The limited data reported on in this paper shows a fairly negative perception regarding the safety of EMCs. Is this perception widely held?. By what sectors of the population? Answers to these types of questions should provide a blueprint regarding how to proceed with any quantitative safety studies. Quantitative Safety — Regarding EMCs, safety translates into two major areas, driver distraction and collisions. For EMCs to be proven as safe or unsafe, there need to be objective studies that demonstrate that after EMCs are installed, there is no increase in the number accidents that are directly attributable to the presence of the EMC. This type of study would be very difficult to conduct as most collisions are not based on any one factor. However, studies that show that EMCs create no more driver distraction than other types of on or off road information sources or distracters would act as a surrogate measure of roadway safety. Recommended Research The following is a list of potential research projects that could be used to begin to address the pressing research needs detailed above. Title: Perception of EMC Safety Method: This would include a detailed survey and critical evaluation of international, national, state, and local EMC regulations and the rationale for their development. Extensive surveys of government regulators' and the public's perception of EMC safety would also be conducted. Model regulations could be drafted. 27 Title: EMC Comprehension • Method: Understanding of messages displayed on EMCs would be evaluated in a laboratory setting using computer generated EMC messages and measuring performance by evaluating message comprehension and retention including the time it takes to absorb the message. Messages displayed in static and dynamic formats would be evaluated. Title: EMC Legibility — Laboratory Study Method: The legibility of EMCs would be evaluated in a laboratory setting using computer generated EMC messages and measuring performance by recording eye movements and determining the minimum content size (or maximum distance). The eye movement recordings will also provide information about how people obtain information from EMCs (e.g., what do they look at first, how long do they dwell on images, etc). Messages would be displayed in static and dynamic formats of varying complexity. Title: EMC Conspicuity and Legibility — Field Study Method: The conspicuity and legibility of EMCs from a dynamic viewer perspective would be evaluated in a field setting using a variety of EMCs (dynamic and static). Performance would be measured using an eye movement device. The distances and viewing angles at which the signs are first detected and when they are read will be recorded. The effects of sign type, message characteristics, environmental, and viewer variables will be evaluated. Title: EMC Safety Method: The safety of EMCs would be evaluated by selecting a large number of locations where EMC have been placed and determining the before -after crash rate and by comparing the crash rates to similar locations that do not have EMCs installed. • • • Title: Model EMC Guidelines Method: Model EMC guidelines would be developed that take the design and use of EMCs through a process that includes consideration of what the sign's purpose is, the target audience, message content, placement, and conspicuity and visibility. REFERENCES Allen, T.M., Dyer, F.N., Smith, G.M., and Janson, M.H. (1967). Luminance requirements for illuminated signs. Highway Research Record, 179, 16-37. Andreassen, D.C. (1985). Technical Note No. 1: Traffic accidents and advertising signs. Australian Road Research, 15(2), 103-105. Bentzen, B.L., and Easton, R.D. (1996). Specifications for transit vehicle next stop messages. Final Report to Sunrise Systems, Inc., Pembroke, MA. Beijer, D. (2004). Observed driver glance behavior at roadside advertising. Presented at Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 14 pgs. Bowers, A.R. and Reid, V.M. (1997). Eye movement and reading with simulated visual • impairment. Ophthalmology and Physiological Optics, 17(5), p492-402. BPS Outdoor. (2004). http://www.bpsoutdoor.com/ Brill, L.M. (2002). LED Billboards: Outdoor advertising in the video age. SignIndustry.com. Available at: http://www.signindustry.com/led/articles/2002-07-30-LBledBillboards php3 Case, H.W., Michael, J.L., Mount, G.E., and Brenner, R. (1952). Analysis of certain variables related to sign legibility. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 60, 44-58. Coetzee, J.L. (2003). The evaluation of content on outdoor advertisements. South African National Roads Agency Final Report, 13 pgs. Available at: http://www.itse.co.za/ Colomb, M. and Hubert, R. (1991). Legibility and contrast requirements of variable -message signs. Transportation Research Record, No.1318, pgs. 137-141. Colomb, M., Hubert, R., Carta, V., and Bry, M. (1991). Variable -message signs: legibility and recognition of symbols. Proceedings of the Conference, Strategic Highway Research Program and Traffic Safety on Two Continents, Gothenburg, Sweden, pgs. 46-62. CTC & Associates, LLC (2003). Electronic billboards and highway safety. Bureau of Highway Operations, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 8 pgs. Available at: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/tsrs/tsrelectronicbillboards.pdf Dewar, R.E. (1988). Criteria for the design and evaluation of traffic sign symbols. Transportation Research Record, 1160, 1-6. 29 Dudek, C.L. (1991). Guidelines on the use of changeable message signs. Final Report - • DTFH61-89-R-00053. U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 269 pgs. Dudek, C.L. and Ullman, G.L. (2002). Flashing messages, flashing lines, and alternating one line on changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No. 1803, pgs. 94-101. Durkop, B.R. and Dudek, C.L. (2001). Texas driver understanding of abbreviations for changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No.1748, pgs 87-95. EDMA (2004). Electronic Display Manufacturer's Association Report. Ells, J.G., and Dewar, R.E. (1979). Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic sign messages. Human Factors, 21, 161-168. FHWA. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction. Federal Highway Administration Final Report Report No. FHWA- RD-01-071. Available at: http://www.thwa.dot.gov/realestate/elecbbrd/ index.htm#contents. FHWA. (2003). Portable changeable message sign handbook: PCMS. FHWA-RD-03-066. McLean, VA 22101. 10 pgs. Fine, E.M., Peli, E., and Reeves, A. (1995). Simulated cataract does not reduce the benefit of RSVP. Vision Research, 37(18), p2639-2647. Forbes, T.W., Moskowitz, K., and Morgan, G. (1950). A comparison of lower case and capital • letters for highway signs. Proceedings, Highway Research Board, 30, 355-373. Garvey, P.M. and Mace, D.J. (1996). Changeable message sign visibility. Federal Highway Administration Report No: FHWA-RD-94-077, Final Report, 137 pgs. Garvey, P.M., Pietrucha, M.T., & Meeker, D. (1997).Effects of font and capitalization on legibility of guide signs. Transportation Research Record, No. 1605, 73-79. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Garvey, P.M., Pietrucha, M.T., & Meeker, D. (1998). Development of a new guide sign alphabet. Ergonomics in Design. Vol 6 (3), pgs. 7-11. Huchingson, R.D. and Dudek, C.L. (1983). How to abbreviate on highway signs. Transportation Research Record, No. 904, pgs. 1-4. Iannuzziello, A.S. (2001) Communicating with persons with disabilities in a multimodal transit environment: A synthesis of transit practice. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 37. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. Jacobs, R.J., Johnston, A.W., and Cole, B.L. (1975). The visibility of alphabetic and symbolic traffic signs. Australian Road Research, 5(7), 68-86. Joffee, E. (1995). Transit vehicle signage for persons who are blind or visually impaired. Journal • of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 89(5), Research Notes, p461-469. 30 a Johnston, A.W., and Cole, B.L. (1976). Investigations of distraction by irrelevant information. Australian Road Research, 6(3), 3-23. Kang, T.J. and Muter P. (1989). Reading dynamically displayed text. Behavior & Information Technology, 8(1), pgs. 33-42. Kline, D.W., and Fuchs, P. (1993). The visibility of symbolic highway signs can be increased among drivers of all ages. Human Factors, 35(1), 25-34. Kline, T.J.B., Ghali, L.M., Kline, D.W., and Brown, S. (1990). Visibility distance of highway signs among young, middle-aged, and older observers: icons are better than text. Human Factors, 32(5), 609-619. Kuhn, B.T., Garvey, P.M., and Pietrucha, M.T. (April 1998). The Impact of Color on Typical On -premise Sign Font Visibility.Presented at TRB's 14th Biennial Symposium on Visibility, Washington, D.C. Legge, G.E., Alin, S.J., Klitz, T.S., and Luebker, A. (1997). Psychophysics in reading - XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 37, p1999-2010. Lovie-Kitchin, J.E., Bowers, A.R., and Woods, R.L. (2000).Oral and silent reading performance with macular degeneration. Ophthalmology and Physiological Optics, 20(5), pgs. 360-370. Lee, S.E., Olsen, E.C.B., and DeHart, M.C. (2003). Driving performance in the presence and absence of billboards. Executive Summary. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, DC. 5 pgs. Lewis, D.J. (2000). Photometric requirements for arrow panels and portable changeable message signs. AASHTO Conference Proceedings Juneau, Alaska, pgs. 215-221 Mace, D.J., Garvey, P.M., and Heckard, R.F. (1994). Relative visibility of increased legend size vs. brighter materials for traffic signs. FHWA-RD-94-035, Report. Washington, DC: FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Mast, T.M., and Balias, J.A. (1976). Diversionary signing content and driver behavior. Transportation Research Record 600, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 14-19. McNees, R.W. and Messer, C.J. (1982). Reading time and accuracy of response to simulated urban freeway guide signs. Transportation Research Record 844, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 41-50. Paniati, J.F. (2003). Use of changeable message signs (CMS) for emergency security messages. FHWA Policy Memorandum — Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-memorandum cros emergency.htm Proffitt, D.R., Wade, M.M., and Lynn, C. (1998). Creating effective variable message signs: • human factors issues. Virginia Department of Transportation, VTRC 98-CR31, Final Contract Report; Project No. 9816-040-940, 25 pgs. 31 Raasch,T.W. and Rubin, G.S. (1993).Reading with low vision. Journal of the American • Optometric Association, 64(1), pgs. 15-18. Rusch, W.A. (1951). Highway accident rates as related to roadside business and advertising. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 46-50. Rykken, K.B. (1951). Minnesota roadside survey: progress report on accident, access point and advertising sign study in Minnesota. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 42-43. Sivak, M., and Olson, P.L. (1985). Optimal and minimal luminance characteristics for retroreflective highway signs. Transportation Research Record, 1027, 53-56. Schieber, F. (1998). Optimizing the legibility of symbol highway signs. Vision in Vehicles VI. Amsterdam: North -Holland Publishers. pgs. 163-170. Smiley, A., MacGregor, C., Dewar, R.E., and Blamey C. (1998). Evaluation of prototype tourist signs for Ontario. Transportation Research Record 1628, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 34-40. Smiley, A., Persaud, B., Bahar, G., Mollett, C., Lyon, C., and Smahel, T., (2005). Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Smiley, A., Smahel, T., and Eizenman, M. (2004). The impact of video advertising on driver fixation patterns. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, is Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Stainforth, R.W. and Kniveton, P.E. (1996). Display technologies for VMS. Traffic Technology International'96. Annual Review Issue, pgs. 208-13. Staplin, L., Gish, K.W., Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., Harkey, D.L., Tarawneh, M.S., Lyles, R., Mace, D., & Garvey, P. (1997). Synthesis of human factors research on older drivers and highway safety, Vol. II.Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-095. Stutts, J., Feaganes, J., Rodgman, E., Hamlett, C., Meadows, T., Reinfurt, D., Gish, K., Mercadante, M., and Staplin, L. (2003). Distractions in everyday driving. AAA Foundation For Traffic Safety Final Report. Available at: http: //www. aaafoundation. org/pdf/di stractionsineverydaydriving.pdf Tantala, M.W. and P.J. Tantala. (2005). An examination of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic safety. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 25 pgs. Ullman, G. (2001). Wording on changeable message signs studied. Urban transportation monitor 15(16), pg. 3. Upchurch, J. Armstrong, J.D., Baaj, M.H., and Thomas, G.B. (1992). Evaluation of variable message signs: Target value, legibility, and viewing comfort. Transportation Research • Record. No. 1376, pgs. 35-44. 32 • USDOT (2003). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available at htlp://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov USSC. (2003). United States Sign Council best practices standards for on -premise signs. Available at: http://www.usse.org/publications.html Wachtel, J. (1981). Electronic advertising along highways --concern for traffic safety. Public Roads, 45(1), pgs. 1-5. Wachtel, J., and Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and environmental design consideration in the use of commercial electronic variable -message signage. Federal Highway Administration Final Report: FHWA-RD-80-051, 101pgs. Wallace, B. (2003a). Driver distraction by advertising: genuine risk or urban myth? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 156, Issue ME3, Pgs. 185 —190. Available at: http://cogprints.org/3307/01/driverdistractionarticle.pd Wallace, B. (2003b). External -to -vehicle driver distraction. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit Report. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/libr4U5/finance/evdd-OO.asp Zineddin, A.Z., Garvey, P.M., and Pietrucha, M.T. (2005). Impact of sign orientation on on - premise commercial signs. Journal of Transportation Engineering. Vol. 131(1), 11-17. Wourms, D.F., Cunningham, P.H., Self, D.A., and Johnson, S.J. (2001). Bus signage guidelines • for persons with visual impairments: electronic signs. Federal Transit Administration Report FTA-VA-26-7026-02.1. • Yager, D., Aquilante, K., and Plass, R. (1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38, pgs. 2527-2531. Young, S. (2004). Visibility achieved by outdoor advertising. Perception Research Services Summary Report. Available at: http://www.prsresearch.com/articles/visibility achieved by outdoor ad.htm Zwahlen, H.T., Sunkara, M., and Schnell, T. (1995). Review of legibility relationships within the context of textual information presentation. Transportation Research Record, No. 1485, pgs. 61-70. 33 • Appendix A Annotated Bibliography 0 A-1 0 Battelle. (2004). Amber, emergency, and travel time messaging guidance for transportation agencies. Battelle Memorial Institute, Final Report. 22 pgs. Abstract: This study was undertaken to provide guidance to transportation officials in planning, designing, and providing various types of traveler information messages using changeable message signs (CMSs). Three primary issues related to messaging are addressed by these guidelines: (1) The basis for the message, i.e., what condition is occurring, what segment is impacted, and what outcome or driver response is desired; (2) How the content is determined, i.e., how is the message structured to maximize driver comprehension, is the message aimed at commuters, unfamiliar drivers, or other groups, is the content automated or put together by a TMC operator, and how is the message coordinated with other information dissemination techniques, e.g., 511; and (3) What policies govern the display of messages, i.e., whose authority is needed to initiate a message, what are the arrangements for posting, updating, and terminating a message, what is the process for interagency coordination (especially with non -transportation agencies), how are messages prioritized during periods when multiple messages are desired, and how are 24/7 operations ensured. The study was divided into three tasks: (1) a literature/background review; (2) a "scan" of the practice; and (3) best practices/lessons learned. Beijer, D. (2004). Observed driver glance behavior at roadside advertising. Presented at Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 14 pgs. • Abstract: Express routes in North America are becoming more crowded, both in traffic density and in visual clutter, resulting in a higher demand for driver attention, a possible concern for regulators. Advertising signs add to this demand on visual attention. This study focused on glance behaviour of 25 drivers at various advertising signs along a Toronto expressway. Subjects averaged glances of 0.57 seconds in duration (sd = 0.41), and 35.6 glances per subject in total (sd = 26.4). Active signs, containing moveable displays or components, comprised 51 % of signs, and received significantly more glances (69% of all glances and 78% of long glances). Number of glances was significantly lower for passive signs (0.64 glances per subject per sign) when compared to active signs (greater than 1.31 glances per subject per sign). Number of long glances was also greater for active signs compared to the passive signs. Sign placement in the visual field may be critical. This study provides empirical information to assist regulatory agencies in setting policy on commercial signing. Bergeron, J. (1997). An evaluation of the influence of roadside advertising on road safety in the greater Montreal region. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the Northeast Association of State Transportation Officials Quebec, Canada, pg. 527. Abstract: In Quebec, the Loi sur la publicite le long des routes [Act goerning roadside advertising] adopted • in 1988 prohibits the installation of billboards within 100 meters of a highway right-of-way. However, the Act does not apply to Urban Community, City and Township territories. This legal loophole has allowed many billboards to be constructed alongside highways in metropolitan areas including Montreal. It has been shown that such billboards are accident -promoting factors. A-2 In an urban setting, analysis of the relation between posted advertising - either conventional or • variable message type - and increased driver information-processing mental loading defines this problem clearly. In light of its responsibilities in road safety matters, the ministere des transports has therefore proposed amending the Code de la securite routiere to prohibit the installation of such billboards in certain areas deemed particularly at risk. Brill, L.M. (2002). LED Billboards: Outdoor advertising in the video age. SignIndustry.com. Available at: http://www.signindustry.com/led/articles/2002-07-30-LBledBillboards.php3 Abstract: LED video display billboards have emerged on a grand scale that converges into a unique display format that is one part print, one part television advertising and one 'digital hieroglyphics.' LED video billboards, like their print counterparts, can be seen hanging out on the sides of freeways silently shouting brand identity, product placements and message of 'buy now for the best deal of a lifetime.' Cao, Y. and Wang, J.H. (2003). Evaluation of design and display factors of changeable message signs. Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003 Annual Meeting and Exhibit. 24 pgs. Abstract: A two-phase study on the design and display factors of changeable message signs (CMSs) was • conducted through a series of blocked -factorial experiments. Subjects sit in the driver's seat of a 1998 Ford Taurus sedan. Computers generated CMS images, merged with a driver's view driving video, and were projected onto a screen in front of the vehicle. Subjects were required to make proper responses signaling their comprehension of the CMS stimuli. Eighteen subjects balanced by age and gender participated the experiments. Phase I investigated the effects of discrete displayed CMSs' font size, font color, subjects' age, gender, and their interactions. It found that font color, drivers' age, and gender significantly affected response time. Green and 5 x 7 matrix were the best font color and font size, respectively. Older drivers responded the fastest among the three age groups but with the lowest accuracy. No significant correlations were found between response time and accuracy. Response times of different subjects were significantly different, but the effects of font color and size were consistent. Phase II studied the influences of display format, number of message lines, lighting, driving lane, and their interactions. It found that discrete displayed messages took less response time than sequential displayed ones. Single - line messages were better than multiple -line ones. Motorists could better view CMSs in sunny days, and better view CMSs when driving in the outer lane. Older drivers exhibited slower response and less accuracy than younger drivers; females exhibited slower response but higher accuracy than males Chatterjee, K., Hounsell, N.B., Firmin, P.E., and Bonsall, P.W. (2002). Driver response to variable message sign information in London. Transportation Research. Part C: Emerging Technologies 10(2), pgs 149-169. • Abstract: This paper presents the results of a study of driver response to information on variable message FAR] signs (VMS) that have been installed in London to notify motorists of planned events and current network problems. Questionnaires were employed to investigate the effect of different messages on route choice. Stated intention data from the questionnaire was used to calibrate logistic regression models relating the probability of route diversion to driver, journey and message characteristics. The resultant models indicate that the location of the incident and, the message content are important factors influencing the probability of diversion. A survey of drivers' actual responses during the activation of an immediate warning message showed that only one-third of drivers saw the information presented to them and few of these drivers diverted, although many . found the information useful. The rate of diversion was only one -fifth of the number predicted from the results of the stated intention questionnaire. The low response rate achieved for the stated intention survey is thought to have exaggerated drivers' responsiveness to VMS messages. Survey data for another UK city with a newly installed VMS system showed that the number of drivers diverting due to VMS information was very similar to that expected from the results of the stated intention questionnaire. The results of the current study suggest that the low proportion of drivers noticing VMS information has implications for the future placement of VMS so that the best opportunities for drivers to see the information are exploited. Results also suggest that the current usage to display advance warnings may be detracting from its effectiveness as a means of disseminating immediate warning information in incident -management situations. Coetzee, J.L. (2003). The evaluation of content on outdoor advertisements. South African National Roads Agency Final Report, 13 pgs. Available at: http://www.itse.co.za/ Abstract: Using the number of bits on advertisement content as the only quantitative criteria was identified as a problem. Accident statistics were evaluated to determine the relationship between advertisements and increased accident rates and it was found that in general, advertisements result in higher accident rates. No accident data related to the content of advertisements was however found. This study investigates an analytical approach to evaluate the contents on advertisements, based on the characteristics of the driver. These characteristics include vision, reaction time, reading time, legibility factors, spare capacity to process information and selective attention. A parallel is drawn between a drivers reading of road signs and the reading of outdoor advertisements. A concept of the critical zone — the 500m in front of an advertisement - is developed and the control of content in this zone is quantified. Rules are proposed to evaluate the content for advertisements that will hopefully provide a more practical, defendable approach to evaluate the content of outdoor advertisements. Colomb, M. and Hubert, R. (1991). Legibility and contrast requirements of variable -message signs. Transportation Research Record, No. 1318, pgs. 137-141. Abstract: New technologies such as optic fibers and light -emitting diodes are now used for information matrix signs. A field study was carried out to evaluate the best conditions for the legibility of these signs during the day and at night. For legibility criteria, the contrast between the letters and the sign background is chosen for daylight conditions and the luminance of the letters for night • conditions. The performance of some commercially available signs is compared with the study results. A-4 Colomb, M., Hubert, R., Carta, V., and Bry, M. (1991). Variable -message signs: legibility and • recognition of symbols. Proceedings of the Conference, Strategic Highway Research Program and Traffic Safety on Two Continents, Gothenburg, Sweden, pgs. 46-62. Abstract: A laboratory study of the understanding of six types of signs was conducted using transparencies produced by the EDGAR graphic software developed for the purpose. The signs were presented to observers for a limited time. The influences of the number of points in the matrix and of the shape of the symbol were investigated. This study raises the problem of specifying matrix symbols. It should be continued in an attempt to arrive at simple recommendations for the main symbols. It would be best to discuss this question at the international, or at the European level, since the symbols on road signs should be the same in all countries. CTC & Associates, LLC (2003). Electronic billboards and highway safety. Bureau of Highway Operations, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 8 pgs. Available at: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/tsrs/tsrelectronicbillboards.pdf Abstract: We located two FHWA resources that are especially helpful for getting familiar with the issues: the Office of Real Estate Services (ORES) Web site and the study entitled Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. The study affords an in-depth look at how states are regulating electronic outdoor advertising, from lenient • control at one end to the prohibition of outdoor advertising at the other. Wisconsin addresses the issue with rules for the content, timing and brightness of EBBs and tri-vision signs. However, standard billboard guidelines governing EBBs and tri-vision signs do not exist: few states, in fact, define the term "electronic billboard." Research on the issue of electronic ads causing driver distraction would suggest that the jury is still out. While some studies conclude that extra- vehicular distractions cause crashes, it has proven difficult to identify and measure the role of electronic advertising in driver distraction. However, promising methodologies have been proposed for focused study of the issue, and for trimming the risk of driver distraction from electronic advertising. Dadic, I., Kos, G., and Brlek, P. (2003). Application of changeable message signs in traffic. Promet Traffic-Traffico, 15(5). Pgs. 307-314. Abstract: In the Republic of Croatia, changeable message signs are being introduced on high serviceable roads in order to improve the flow management in the network and increase the traffic safety level. The equipment installed in the past was not set according to the unique criteria, thus resulting in the installation of relatively incompatible equipment set in a disorganized manner. This work presents the basic guidelines in applying changeable message signs, primarily on the Croatian motorways. The types and levels of influence on the traffic are described, and the traffic and weather criteria for the application of changeable message signs are defined. The paper also is the principles of installing the changeable message signs on roads and road facilities, recommending priorities in presenting the changeable signs. A-5 • Davis, P., Sunkari, S., Dudek, C., and Balke, K. (2002). Requirements specification for DMS message optimization software tool (MOST) Texas Department of Transportation Final Report No. FHWA/TX-03/4023-2, 110 pgs. Abstract: Composing a message for a dynamic message sign (DMS) requires managers and supervisors at the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Traffic Management Centers to consider numerous factors. For example, they must consider the content and length of the message as well as memory load for motorists. Following documented guidelines about formatting and phrasing of messages, the requirements for a software system called the DMS Message Optimization Software Tool, or MOST, are discussed. The system is designed to accept input data through a graphical user interface, to allow selection of terms, and to produce a message suitable for display in a DMS. The application automatically applies principles of good message design and allows users to customize their messages. The design of the system follows work done previously in TxDOT Project 0-4023. Dudek, C.L. (1991). Guidelines on the use of changeable message signs. Final Report - DTFH61-89-R-00053. 269p. U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Abstract: The 1986 FHWA publication "Manual on Real -Time Motorist Information Displays" provides practical guidelines for the development, design, and operation of real-time displays, both visual and auditory. The emphasis in the Manual is on the recommended content of messages to be displayed in various traffic situations; the manner in which messages are to be displayed --format, coding, style, length, load redundancy, and number of repetitions; and where the messages should be placed with respect to the situations they are explaining. This report is intended to provide guidance on 1) selection of the appropriate type of Changeable Message Sign (CMS) display, 2) the design and maintenance of CMSs to improve target value and motorist reception of messages, and 3) pitfalls to be avoided, and it updates information contained in the Manual. The guidelines and updated information are based on research results and on practices being employed by highway agencies in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. CMS technology developments since 1984 are emphasized. Since the use of matrix -type CMSs, particularly light -emitting technologies, has increased in recent years. Matrix CMSs have received additional attention in this report. The report concentrates on design issues relative to CMSs with special emphasis on visual aspects, but does not establish specific criteria to determine whether to implement displays. The intent is to address display design issues for diverse systems ranging from highly versatile signing systems integrated with elaborate freeway corridor surveillance and control operations to low cost, less sophisticated surveillance and signing systems intended to alleviate a single specific problem. Dudek, C.L. (1997). Changeable message signs. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice. 237, • 63 pgs. Abstract: This synthesis will be of interest to traffic engineers in federal, state, provincial, and local transportation agencies that are responsible for the design and operation of safe and efficient • highway systems. It will also be useful to consulting traffic engineers, sign manufacturers, and vendors in the private sector who assist governmental clients in the application of changeable message sign (CMS) and other intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. It is an update of NCHRP Synthesis No. 61 (1979). It describes the various types of permanently mounted CMSs in use in the United States and Canada. This technology, also referred to as "variable message signs" or "motorist information displays", is in widespread use in North America. This report of the Transportation Research Board provides information on the various CMS types in use, their typical characteristics, including the technology types, the character (letters and numbers) types and size, and conspicuity. The synthesis presents a discussion on the types of messages used when there are no incidents. Other aspects, such as procurement, maintainability, and warranties are also discussed. Dudek, C; Trout, N; Booth, S; Ullman, G. (2000). Improved dynamic message sign messages and operations. Texas Department of Transportation Final Report No. FHWA/TX-01/1882-2, 188 pgs. Abstract: This report provides the results of an extensive laboratory investigation of a total of 15 specific issues related to dynamic message sign (DMS) operations statewide. These issues were identified and approved by the Texas Department of Transportation project advisors responsible for DMS operations in their respective districts. Laptop computers were used to simulate DMS message • displays. After each message display, participating subject drivers responded to questions designed to determine the level of recall and comprehension of the information contained in the message. Response times as well as message format/sign operating preferences were also collected from the subject drivers. The report contains specific recommendations concerning DMS issues in the following four categories: (1) communicating time and day for future roadwork to motorists; (2) motorist interpretations of specific words or phrases used on DMSs; (3) DMS operating practices; and (4) using DMSs with lane control signals Dudek, C.L. and Ullman, G.L. (2002). Flashing messages, flashing lines, and alternating one line on changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No. 1803, pgs. 94-101. Abstract: Results of human factors laboratory studies conducted in Texas pertaining to the display of messages using the following dynamic characteristics of changeable message signs (CMSs) are presented: (a) the effect of flashing an entire one -frame message, (b) the effect of flashing one line of a one -frame message; and (c) the effect of alternating text on one line of a three -line CMS while keeping the other two lines of text the same. Two hundred sixty Texas drivers were recruited in Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio to participate in the laboratory studies designed to simulate these CMS characteristics on laptop computers. The drivers responded to questions designed to determine the level of recall and comprehension of the information contained in the message. Response times, message format, and sign operating • preferences were also collected. The results showed that in the laboratory setting, flashing a one - frame message did not adversely affect driver recall or comprehension to a significant degree compared with when the message was not flashed. However, average reading times were A-7 • significantly higher when the message was flashed. Flashing one line of a three -line message appeared to adversely affect recall of parts of the message. In addition, average reading times were significantly higher for the flashing line message. Alternating one line of text and keeping the other two lines constant did not adversely affect message recall. However, average reading times increased significantly. • Durkop, B.R. and Dudek, C.L. (2001). Texas driver understanding of abbreviations for changeable message signs. Transportation Research Record No. 1748; pgs 87-95. Abstract: Research was conducted as part of an ongoing project for the Texas Department of Transportation to evaluate the use of changeable message signs (CMSs) in Texas. The objective was to determine motorist understanding of abbreviations for use on CMSs. A human factors study was conducted in six locations in Texas. Participants were given a list of abbreviations and were asked to interpret the full words or phrases. The results identified 24 abbreviations that were understood at an acceptable level for use on CMSs in Texas; acceptability was based on a criterion of 8 5 % or more of the participants' correctly interpreting the word or phrase. Differences in study location comprehension levels were also examined. Twelve abbreviations were recommended for use only at particular locations on the basis of the varying comprehension levels among the six study locations. Abbreviations that were understood by less than 85% of the participants were not recommended for use in Texas. FHWA. (1996). Uniform traffic control and warning messages for portable changeable message signs. FHWA-RD-95-173, Summary Report, 2 pgs. Abstract: The purpose of this study was to develop and test word and symbol traffic control and hazard warning messages for use on portable changeable message signs (PCMSs). The literature was reviewed, State highway engineers were interviewed, PCMS manufacturers were surveyed, and motorists were questioned to develop an extensive list of candidate PCMS messages for subsequent evaluation during the laboratory and field-testing. More than 800 messages were . identified for 30 situations. The laboratory studies were conducted to identify those key words or phrases that the motorist felt were most effective. Field tests, both daytime and nighttime, were conducted for candidate messages that lacked a clear winner during the laboratory studies. Also six symbol messages were shown during the field tests to evaluate motorist comprehension of these messages. This summary report presents some of the research results. The full report, which has the same title as this summary report, is FHWA-RD-95-171 (TRIS 00720253). FHWA. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction. Federal. Highway Administration Final Report. Report No. FHWA-RD- 01-071. Available at: • http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/elecbbrd/index.htm#contents. Abstract: Advances in outdoor display technology, and decreases in cost, support an interest in expanding deployment of high resolution and dynamic imaging in outdoor advertising. This raises questions • on the effects that electronic billboards (EBBS) and other dynamic signs such as tri-vision signs may have on driver distraction. The purpose of this report is to present a review of the literature on the safety implications of electronic billboards, to identify knowledge gaps in the findings of the review, and to develop a research plan to address the knowledge gaps. The general approach in this review was to identify information about potential safety implications of EBBS. Factual data regarding billboard safety were sought through a review of existing research literature and information obtained from government staff. Because driver distraction is of interest in other areas of research, such as cellular telephone use and in -vehicle visual information equipment, the present report examines these areas for possible cross-fertilization results. The report concludes with a set of research questions and research findings that are directed to the safe design of dynamic billboards. FHWA. (2003). Portable changeable message sign handbook: PCMS. FHWA-RD-03-066. McLean, VA 22101. 10 pgs. Abstract: A portable changeable message sign (PCMS) is a traffic control device that is capable of displaying a variety of messages to inform motorists of unusual driving conditions. This capability is achieved through elements on the face of the sign that can be activated to form letters or symbols. The message is limited by the size of the sign (usually three lines with eight characters per line). A PCMS is housed on a trailer or on a truck bed and can be deployed • quickly for meeting the temporary requirements frequently found in work zones or accident areas. The purpose of this handbook is to present basic guidelines for the use of PCMSs. This handbook presents information on the PCMS and is intended to illustrate the principles of proper PCMS use. Finley, M.D., Wooldridge, M.D., Mace, D, and Denholm, J. (2001). Photometric requirements for portable changeable message signs. Texas Department of Transportation, TX-02/4940-2, Research Report 4940-2, TTI: 7-4940. 40 pgs. Abstract: Portable changeable message signs (PCMSs) are traffic control devices that advise motorists of unexpected traffic and routing situations. In contrast to static signing, PCMSs convey dynamic information in a variety of applications, such as work zones, incident management, traffic management, and warning of adverse conditions. Although PCMSs have been used in traffic control applications for many years, there are no established photometric standards for the device that can be used as the basis for a procurement specification. The only provision related to the visibility of PCMSs is a requirement in the "Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways --Part VI" which indicates that PCMSs be visible from at least a half mile (under ideal day and night conditions) and the sign message is legible at a minimum of 650 ft. However, the manual does not provide a means for determining whether PCMSs meet these criteria. This project reviewed the performance of PCMSs and developed photometric standards is establish performance requirements. In addition, researchers developed photometric test methods and recommended them for use in evaluating the performance of PCMSs. This report includes a review of the literature and provides documentation for the standards and procedures A-9 • recommended. Flad, H.K. (1997). Country clutter: visual pollution and the rural roadscape. The Annals, 553, pgs. 117-129. Abstract: The landscape of rural America has been profoundly influenced by social, cultural, and economic changes. The rural roadscape is a visible text of these changes, and the transportation palimpsest a cultural text of the American ideal of mobility. This article briefly examines the growth of the presence of the automobile and the automobile's role in changing the face of rural America, with an emphasis on the aesthetics of the roadscape. In the late twentieth century, a concern for the visual environment has become an important part of environmental assessment, and selected aspects of roadside visual pollution, particularly signs, are examined, especially as they relate to federal and state legislation concerning billboards. Lastly, public and private sector efforts to preserve and enhance cultural and historical rural landscapes, through such measures as the designation of scenic roads, is presented as an example of more holistic transportation planning Fontaine, M.D. (2003). Guidelines for application of portable work zone intelligent transportation systems. Transportation Research Record No1824, pgs. 15-22. • Abstract: Work zone intelligent transportation systems (WZITSs) are promoted as a way to improve safety and reduce congestion at work zone locations where traditional traffic management centers do not exist. These systems usually integrate portable changeable message signs and speed sensors with a central control system that automatically determines appropriate messages that are based on current traffic conditions. Manufacturers of these systems claim that WZITSs can warn drivers of downstream congestion, alert drivers to slower speeds ahead, and suggest alternate routes on the basis of prevailing conditions. Transportation agencies are often asked to make decisions on the installation of a WZITS without the benefit of objective information on its expected performance. Relatively few operational tests of these systems have been performed, and the results are not always well documented or conclusive. Agencies need guidance to help them determine whether a WZITS system would improve safety and operations at a specific site. Applications of WZITSs are reviewed, and a series of guidelines for their deployment, based on lessons learned from past tests, is presented. Garvey, P.M. and Mace, D.J. (1996). Changeable message sign visibility. Federal Highway Administration Report No: FHWA-RD-94-077, Final Report, 137 pgs. Abstract: The object of this contract was to identify problems with the visibility of changeable message • signs (CMSs), particularly for older drivers, and to develop design guidelines and operational recommendations to ensure adequate conspicuity and legibility of in-service CMSs. This project was divided into three main sections: a field survey of in -use CMSs, a series of laboratory experiments and static field studies, and a partially controlled dynamic field study. The research A-10 was designed to optimize CMS components, including the character variables (font, width -to- • height ratio, color, and contrast orientation) and the message variables (inter -letter, inter -word, and inter -line spacing). Guerrier, J. and Wachtel, J. (2001). A simulator study of driver response to changeable message signs of differing message length and format (abstract only). Driving Assessment 2001: The First International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. Aspen, Colorado, pgs. 164-165. Abstract: Highway congestion nationwide continues to increase, and three Florida urban areas rank among the top ten. Florida has been studying and implementing intelligent transportation system technologies to address its congestion problems, with a focus on its special populations such as the elderly and multi -cultural groups for which English is not the primary language. One of these technologies most widely deployed is the changeable message sign (CMS). Fifty-two CMSs are operational in Florida, with 39 more scheduled for deployment soon. Although CMSs have the potential to facilitate travel, certain issues must be considered to ensure that they do not exacerbate the congestion problem. One key CMS operational issue is the number of phases required to present a complete message. "On -time" for two-phase messages varies from 2.5 to 5 seconds per phase across the State. Of course, the appropriateness of this on -time depends not only on the characteristics of the CMS itself, but on the road, traffic and weather conditions, and driver characteristics. This study, funded by the National Institute on Aging, investigated issues • related to the number of CMS phases and their on -time. The authors used a low-cost, interactive driving simulator supplemented with a video monitor above the main display. While simulator screens presented interactive road and traffic conditions, the supplemental monitor displayed the CMS. Young and old drivers drove the simulator under different workload conditions and responded to road closure/detour information on the CMS. All CMS displays were developed in accordance with accepted guidelines and were reviewed for content by independent experts. Results showed consistent and significant age effects across all tested conditions. In addition, the authors found significantly poorer response for all drivers under the two-phase CMS, despite the fact that the message "on -time" was nearly 2 seconds longer than that used in two major Florida jurisdictions. The findings have implications for CMS design and operation in Florida and in other jurisdictions with similar populations. Harder, K.A., Bloomfield, J., and Chihak, B.J. (2003). The effectiveness and safety of traffic and non -traffic related messages presented on changeable message signs (CMS). Minnesota Department of Transportation MN/RC-2004-27 Final Report. 61 pgs. Abstract: The objectives of this study investigating Changeable Message Signs (CMS) were to determine whether or not CMS messages really work, whether or not they cause traffic slow downs, and whether or not they have an impact on traffic flow. The participants were 120 licensed drivers from three age groups --I 8-24, 32-47, and 55-65 years old. Two experiments were conducted in a • fully -interactive, PC -based STISIM driving simulator. Experiment One investigated the effectiveness of the following message, "CRASH/AT WYOMING AVE/USE THOMPSON EXIT." In Experiment Two, the final CMS message was: "AMBER ALERT/RED FORD A-11 • TRUCKJMN LIC# SLM 509." Results were as follows: In Experiment Two, only 8.3% of the participants had Excellent AMBER Recall Scores, while 51.7% has Good scores. Gender significantly affected the AMBER Recall Scores --there were more females than males in the Excellent Category. A greater proportion of those who knew what AMBER Alert meant were in the Excellent and Good Categories. 21.7% of the participants slowed down by at least 2 mph. Whether or not traffic delays will result from drivers slowing to read AMBER Alerts in real life will depend on the extent of the slow downs and on current traffic density. In Experiment One, 55.8% of the participants took the Thompson Exit after seeing the Thompson Exit Message. Of the 53 participants who did not take the exit (1) 35.9% ignored the CMS message because they did not think that it applied to them; (2) 35.9% did not understand the CMS message; and (3) 22.5% did not notice the message. (It is not known why 5.7% of the 53 did not take the exit.) Changes to the wording of the messages are recommended. Hitchins, D (2001). Lowercase font set development for variable message signs (VMS). 8th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 10 pgs. Abstract: Current Transit New Zealand (road .controlling authority in New Zealand) policy dictates that within the most heavily congested sections of the Auckland motorway system, Variable Message Signs (VMS) are used only to display traffic related messages. When not doing so they remain blank. For some, this policy has been of concern, since when a VMS is blank drivers cannot tell • whether it is working or not, and therefore whether traffic conditions are normal. The counter - argument to this is that VMS illuminated with unimportant information may cause unnecessary distraction to motorists. Also, if signs are displaying a message of some sort all of the .time; drivers might not read the messages at all in time, on the basis that they are rarely important. One method of overcoming this problem is to display familiar safety messages on selected VMS using lower case font. This will enable drivers to perhaps distinguish general safety messages from important road related information, which is normally displayed using upper case font. The benefits, costs and risks associated with current Transit practice has yet to be quantified. Empirical studies to gain a better understanding of driver behavior and response to this practice is currently underway and will aim to investigate and identify a range of options available for extended display on VMS, along with their likely impacts. Holick, A.J. (2000). Development of portable variable message sign user guidelines for common applications. Compendium: papers on advanced surface transportation systems, pgs. 89-120. Abstract: This report focuses on the development of guidelines for the use of portable variable message signs (PVMS). The guidelines are designed to assist users in properly placing the PVMS and message displays. Information was collected on researched guidelines and state DOT operators' manuals and the results were compared. A draft set of user guidelines based on these comparisons was1hen produced. The guidelines covered the following areas: process, audience, • purpose format, logical order, visual inspection, and terminating and updating messages. Huchingson, R.D. and Dudek, C.L. (1983). How to abbreviate on highway signs A-12 Transportation Research Record, No. 904, pgs. 1-4. • Abstract: This study investigated abbreviations for 80 traffic -related words by having a sample of drivers compose abbreviations and then having a different sample identify the word after being given the most popular abbreviation. Abbreviations were classified by percentage of subjects who correctly identified the words when presented alone and, again, when presented in the context of another word. The study identified strategies employed in abbreviating words, explored the relation between highly stereotyped abbreviations and success in understanding them, and recommended a set of abbreviations that likely could be used successfully on changeable - message signs. Jones, S.L. Jr., and Thompson, M.W. (2002). State of the practice for displaying non -traffic related messages on dynamic message signs. Today's Transportation Challenge: Meeting Our Customer's Expectations. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 22 pgs. Abstract: Dynamic message signs (DMS), also referred to as changeable message signs (CMS) and variable message signs (VMS), have been used for over 30 years to provide traffic information to motorists and have become a prominent component of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). They have become an important component of many advanced traveler information and traffic management systems. DMS allow for the dissemination of real-time traffic information to • motorists and are generally deployed in urban areas to inform motorists of traffic conditions (e.g., expected delays, estimated travel times, diversion routes, lane closures). DMS have become an important source of motorist information during incidents, special events, and work zone traffic control. The value of DMS, or any traffic information source, is dependent on two items: (1) The accuracy and usefulness of the information disseminated; (2) Motorists' willingness and ability to understand and utilize the information. The latter point involves the public perception of traffic information technologies. The quality of traffic -related messages as well as the overall presence of DMS affects the public perception. Traffic management agencies must understand that DMS affect public perception even when they are not actively conveying traffic -related information. Motorists may perceive blank signs as inoperable or may question the allocation of resources to technologies that seem to be (from their perspective) underutilized. On the other hand, displaying information not germane to real-time traffic conditions may erode the credibility of DMS and reduce their effectiveness as a traffic management tool. The purpose of the research presented herein was to assess the professional opinion regarding DMS usage during normal traffic conditions. Kang, T.J. and Muter P. (1989). Reading dynamically displayed text. Behavior & Information Technology, 8(1), pgs. 33-42. Abstract: Two experiments were carried out to find an optimal electronic text display method given limited • display space. The display formats tested fell into two categories: Times Square, in which text is scrolled from right to left; and rapid, serial, visual presentation (RSVP), in which text is presented one or several words at a time to a fixed location in the display. Previous studies have A-13 . indicated that Times Square format is not as efficient as page format display or, by extrapolation, as RSVP. These studies, unlike the present experiments, did not include a smooth -scrolling (pixel -by -pixel) condition. In Experiment 1, a comparison was made between multiple -word RSVP and three versions of Times Square format, differing only in the size of the steps by which the display was scrolled. Except for the largest step -size, comprehension was as high in the Times Square condition as in the RSVP condition. The subjects expressed a significant preference for smooth scrolling Times Square over any other condition. Experiment 2 showed that comprehension for smooth scrolling Times Square was at least as high as that for RSVP at presentation rates ranging from 100 to 300 words per minute. Times Square reading is discussed in terms of optokinetic nystagmus (OKN). Lee, K. (2004). Electronic billboard: its influence on public space. Master's Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Television, Radio, Film and Theatre San Jose State University. Abstract: As an outdoor advertising medium, the electronic billboard, which is a combination of a billboard and television, has been emerging. However, little research has been done concerning the medium. Using multiple methodological approaches, this thesis investigates the influence of the electronic billboard on public space. Initially, it explores the space -altering characteristic of the electronic billboard by examining billboards and television respectively in terms of their relationships with environments. Secondly, it conducted observational research in Times Square, • New York, and Shibuya, Tokyo, and recorded the phenomenon of electronic billboards. The information and data gathered from this research are discussed ethnographically and analyzed using typology. Research on this subject reveals that the electronic billboard makes its location placeless by delivering messages, which are not relevant to its geographical origin.. In the larger context of urbanization, the electronic billboard represents a birth of antigeographical place. Lee, S.E., Olsen, E.C.B., and DeHart, M.C. (2003). Driving performance in the presence and absence of billboards. Executive Summary. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, DC. 5 pgs. Abstract: The goal of this project was to ascertain whether or not driving behavior changes in the presence or absence of billboards. Drivers' visual behavior was measured by eyeglance location. In addition, lane deviation and speed changes were noted. The conclusion of the study was .that billboards to not cause a change in driving behavior when driving behavior is evaluated in terms of maintenance of speed, visual behavior, or keeping in one's lane. Lewis, D.J. (2000). Photometric requirements for arrow panels and portable changeable message signs. AASHTO Conference Proceedings Juneau, Alaska, pgs. 215-221 • Abstract: Arrow panels and portable changeable message signs are often used in work zones to inform drivers of the need for a lane change or caution. The "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" (MUTCD) requires that Type C arrow panels have a minimum legibility distance of 1.6 A-14 km (1 mi). However, the MUTCD does not provide a subjective means for determining whether is an arrow panel meets this criterion. Nor are there industry photometric standards for message panels. The purpose of this project is to develop a reliable and repeatable objective method for measuring the photometrics of arrow and message panels to ensure adequate performance. The research project tasks include a review of the state of the art, reviews of existing pertinent specifications, development of initial test methods, evaluations of arrow and message panel visibility and the effectiveness of the test methods, revisions and modifications of the test methods, and documentation of research activities and findings. The research findings will be described in a research report and a project summary report. The recommended test methods will be included in both documents. Lopez, E. and Abedon, D. (2001). Operational standards for dynamic message signs. 8th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. Sydney, Australia. 9 pgs. Abstract: The term dynamic message sign is an umbrella classification for numerous intelligent transportation systems (ITS) en -route information sign technologies. Included under this umbrella are: changeable message signs, variable message signs, blank out signs, and lane control signs. This research effort looks at permanent variable and changeable message sign technologies only and will refer to them as "variable message signs (VMS)." With the proliferation of dynamic message signs throughout the United States, are variable message signs being operated and maintained uniformly at a national level, if not, is the overall effectiveness • and benefits to the motoring public being compromised? Past experience with static signs has shown that by unifying how signs are installed, operated and maintained the same "look and feel" is created so that all motorists respond to the sign in the same manner regardless of where they are in the nation. With no clear guidance on this issue, state and local agencies are struggling with, and at times developing their own standards on VMS operations. This challenge has led many practitioners to haphazardly install variable message signs around the nation without being accountable of any consequences. Lucas, A. and Montoro, L. (2004). Some critical remarks on a new traffic system: VMS part II. In: the human factors of transport signs. CRC Press LLC, pgs 199-212. Abstract: Information technologies are aiding the growth of new and more rational road transport systems. At the core of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), traffic management and control critically depend on technical devices and road information well suited for road users because, in the end, the information in front of road users (e.g. VMS) is the basic tool for improving road traffic. In addition to a necessary technological optimism, a critical view is necessary for lessening or avoiding pitfalls. New presentation systems may distort the road sign system and worsen communication to road users. Official and unofficial road signs are currently undergoing promising research and professional and policy inquiries, hopefully to aid mobility and road safety. It is clear, though, that ITS may promote a heterogeneous, uncontrolled extension of the • road sign system, thus making interpretation on the part of road users more difficult. In addition to changing road information elements (e.g., pictograms, abbreviations, and verbal labels), new VMS device structures force the use of different message formats, making road sign A-15 harmonization and coherence all the more difficult. Metaxatos, P. and Soot, S. (2001). Evaluation of the driver's ability to recall the message content of portable changeable message signs in highway work zones. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 40(1), pgs. 129-141. Abstract: This paper examines factors that affect the ability of drivers to recall Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS) messages in highway work zones. A Chi square analysis has found that the time of day, driver's age, type of vehicle, and familiarity with the site are relevant factors, and that drivers were more likely to recall messages that contain action rather than problem statements. A regression analysis revealed that drivers recalled the PCMS message components that they desired to see almost twice as often, and that drivers familiar with the construction site were almost twice as likely to observe an action statement. Nsour, S.A. (1997). IVHS and the elderly driving. Traffic Congestion and Traffic Safety in the 21st Century: Challenges, Innovations, and Opportunities. Chicago, Illinois, pgs. 333-339. Abstract: This study was conducted on two groups, 385 elderly people and 126 young people with the age • of 65 as the dividing line. The purpose is to examine the driving tasks that elderly see as difficult and then explore the possibilities of using Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) to solve some of the driving problems faced by the elderly. The study showed that the tasks of driving at night, driving on two-lane highways at night, driving in rainy weather at night, and reading changeable message signs are the top most difficult tasks for elderly as compared with young drivers. About 25% of the elderly surveyed view reading changeable message signs as either difficult or very difficult. The most frequent suggestions by the elderly on improvements to the highway were those related to making signs more visible/readable, increasing sign -exit distance, and increasing sign illumination and reflection. About 52% of suggestions by the elderly on vehicle instrumentation centered on making the instrumentation more visible. The percentage of elderly in favor of electronic navigation maps is roughly 62% compared to 85% of the young. Parentela, E. and Eskander, N. (2001). Effectiveness of changeable message signs (CMS) on Los Angeles freeways. Improving Transportation Systems Safety and Performance. 2001 Spring Conference and Exhibit, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Monterey, California. 6 pgs. Abstract: A survey was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of changeable message signs (CMS) along Southern California freeways in terms of driver's response to displayed messages. The survey participants are regular commuters who spend an average of less than one to three hours daily on the freeway and are familiar with the operation of CMS. The usefulness of CMS and its ability to • convey clear, accurate and reliable messages are some of the questions included in the survey. The paper also addresses the drivers' perception on trip safety and travel time. The results indicate a general agreement that CMS are helpful and reliable. Yet, while most motorists pay attention to the displayed messages and follow the diversion messages such as a detour, 28 A-16 percent consider them to be a distraction and 17 percent do not want to see additional CMS. 0 Proffitt, D.R., Wade, M.M., and Lynn, C. (1998). Creating effective variable message signs: human factors issues. Virginia Department of Transportation, VTRC 98-CR31, Final Contract Report; Project No. 9816-040-940, 25 pgs. Abstract: This report addresses the human factors issues related to the reading and comprehension of variable message sign (VMS) messages. A review of the literature was conducted on factors that affect how people read VMSs. Several topics were reviewed. The first topic was literacy. Since reading literacy is not a requirement for obtaining a driver's license, VMS composition should reflect the varied reading competence levels of motorists. It was found that about 25% of Virginians over the age of 16 are weak readers and will likely encounter problems reading VMSs. The second topic addressed how people read. Reading is an interactive process that derives much of its speed and accuracy from implicit knowledge acquired through familiarity. This implies that VMS messages should present familiar, standardized content whenever possible. A review of the literature on warning signs was the third topic. This review found that effective warning signs should have several properties: short, concise messages are both easier to read and more likely to be read; and signal words, such as CAUTION, are not effective. Finally, areas for further research were identified. Symbolic messages and abbreviations are worthy of further investigation as they have the potential for easy recognition, provided they are familiar to motorists and can be accommodated by the VMS. In addition, although the Manual on Uniform • Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) advises angling the VMS away from the roadway to reduce headlight glare, angling the VMS toward the roadway could be desirable for increasing readability. In both these areas, theoretical and practical work is needed. The report recommends that these human factors characteristics and limitations be taken into consideration in the deployment of VMSs and in the composition of their messages. Smiley, A., Persaud, B., Bahar, G., Mollett, C., Lyon, C., and Smahel, T., (2005). Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Abstract Road authorities are under increasing pressure from advertisers to allow video advertising in the right of way, but are understandably concerned about whether or not video signs constitute a driving hazard. At the City of Toronto's request, a comprehensive assessment of traffic safety impacts related to such signs was carried out in a series of studies involving three downtown intersections and an urban expressway site. An on -road eye fixation study was carried out to determine if drivers look at video advertising signs. Conflict studies were conducted to determine if there were more conflicts on video -visible than video -not -visible intersection approaches. A before -and -after sign installation study of headways and speeds on the urban expressway was carried out. Crashes, before and after sign installation, at the expressway and three intersection sites, were compared. Finally, a public survey was conducted to determine if video advertising • was perceived to impact traffic safety. Based on the eye fixation study and the public survey data, it is apparent that video advertising can distract drivers inappropriately, leading to individual crashes. A-17 However, the evidence from other studies was not consistent, suggesting that for the particular signs studied, overall impacts on traffic safety are likely to be small. Further studies, especially prospective ones with larger crash data sets are required to be certain. A comparison between this study and an earlier one suggests there are large differences in driver distraction dependent on the placement and environment in which the sign is seen. Further studies are required to determine factors, which minimize driver distraction. Smiley, A., Smahel, T., and Eizenman, M. (2004). The impact of video advertising on driver fixation patterns. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 18 pgs. Abstract: In order to assess driver distraction due to video advertising signs, eye fixation data were collected from subjects who passed 4 video advertising signs, 3 at downtown intersections and 1 on an urban expressway. On average drivers looked at the signs 45% of the time they were present. When drivers looked, they made 1.9 glances on average, with an average duration of 0.48 seconds. The distribution of eye fixations on intersection approaches where video signs were visible was compared to that on approaches on which video signs were not visible. There were no significant differences in the number of glances made at traffic signals or street signs. On the video approach there was a trend towards a greater proportion of glances at the speedometer and rear-view mirrors. Glances were made at short headways (1 second) and in is commercial circumstances (while crossing an intersection). In the downtown area, glances at static commercial signs were made at larger angles and at shorter headways than was the case for video signs. A comparison of our results with other studies showed that video signs were less likely to be looked at than traffic signs (about half the time versus virtually every time), that individual average glance durations and total durations were similar to those found for traffic signs. However, another on -road study indicates that some video signs can be very distracting. A video sign on a curve that was directly in the line of sight and visible for an extensive period attracted 5.1 glances per exposed subject. Soot, S. and Metaxatos, P. (1999). Policies for use of changeable message signs in highway work zones Illinois Transportation Research Center Final Report, Report No. ITRC FR 97-1, 207 pgs. Abstract: Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS) systems used in work zones are programmable supplementary traffic control devices that display messages composed of letters, symbols or both and provide information and instructions to the traveling public approaching work zone activities. The study seeks to develop warrants and criteria for PCMS deployment in Illinois highway work zones. It is recommended that PCMS systems be used during long- and intermediate -term stationary work, for, traffic control through incident areas, and in projects where advance -time notification is needed. The discussion focuses on spacing criteria, number of • signs required, sign visibility and message legibility, text alignment, distance criteria, message length, duration and type, project -level operational guidelines, message storage and dissemination, repair, maintenance and utility costs, as well as control and coordination issues. The study concludes that additional research is needed in order to: develop a comprehensive A-18 standardized statewide database of messages and message abbreviations; develop a • comprehensive repository with information about the technology of the various components of the PCMS units; coordinate PCMS units used in highway work zones with a corridor or regional ATMS system; and maintain information about the use of a PCMS unit in a work zone project and possibly integrate it with other relevant information in a management system. Tantala, M.W. and P.J. Tantala. (2005). An examination of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic safety. Presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 25 pgs. Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between advertising signs and traffic safety. The first part of this study establishes statistical correlation coefficients between advertising signs and accidents along the New Jersey Turnpike (for more than four years of data and about 23,000 accidents). This study considers various situations, with and without bias from turnpike interchanges. The results are analyzed for a variety of commonly accepted scenarios relating accident density to sign -density (the number of signs), to Viewer Reaction Distance (how far from a sign the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign), and to sign proximity (how far the accident is from the nearest sign). The second part of this study examines the incidence of traffic accidents at a specific, recently installed sign and for a period of time both before and after the installation of the sign. After the installation of a specific, advertising sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, the traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) • decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or week decreased. The results of this study conclude that advertising signs have no significant statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. These analyses also suggest that no causal relationship between advertising signs and accidents exists. Geospatial and geostatistical methods are used rigorously. Ullman, G.L., Ullman, B.R., Dudek, C.L., and Trout, N.D. (2004). Legibility distances of smaller character light -emitting diode (LED) dynamic message signs for arterial roadways. City of Dallas Transportation Management Systems Final Report, 41pgs. Abstract: This report documents the results of a legibility study of 9-in. and 10.6-in. characters on dynamic message signs (DMSs) for use on arterial roadways. The study, conducted at Dallas, Texas, consisted of 60 Dallas residents (demographically balanced with respect to age and education) who drove a test vehicle as they approached DMSs with one of the above two character heights. Study administrators recorded the distance from the sign at which the participant could correctly read a three -character word. Data were recorded for three trials on each of the two character heights for each participant. Data were collected during daylight (sun overhead) and nighttime conditions. The 85th percentile legibility distances for each character height were used to estimate available viewing times under various approach speeds. These available viewing times dictate the units of information that can then be presented on a DMS of a particular character size. Based on the results of the analysis, researchers recommend that the City of Dallas continue • to utilize 12-in. characters for DMSs on their arterial roadways. Even then, the amount of information that is presented on the DMS should be limited to 3 units of information or less under nighttime viewing conditions. Agencies should consult other references, as documented A-19 • within this report, regarding proper message design principles, appropriate abbreviations to use, etc., prior to designing and implementing an arterial street DMS system. USDOT (2003). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration. Available at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ Abstract: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets and highways. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F. Although the MUTCD is routinely updated to include amendments that clarify new standards and incorporate technical advances, it has been more than 20 years since the manual was entirely rewritten, and the most recent edition was published in 1988. The new MUTCD is published in 3-ring binders for easy updating, on CD-ROM, and on the Internet. Redesigned text format will help users identify STANDARDS -- "shall" conditions; GUIDANCE -- "should" conditions; OPTIONS -- "may" conditions; and SUPPORT -- descriptive and/or general information for designing, placing, and applying traffic control devices. Measurements are presented in both metric and English units. USSC. (2003). United States Sign Council best practices standards for on -premise signs. • Available at: http://www.ussc.org/publications.html Abstract: A research -based approach to sign size, legibility, and height. Amply illustrated with tables, charts, and mathematical formulae designed to facilitate the calculation of sign letter height and copy area, negative space, overall sign size, and sign height as functions of the speed of travel utilizing the application of such factors as message size, message scan time, viewer reaction time and distance, and copy area; all presented in easy to understand language and simple tables or formulas. Van Houten, R. and Malenfant, J.E.L. (2002). Evaluation of changeable message signs (CMS) on I-4 at exits 30a and 30b to assign ramp traffic and at Princeton St. to sign for cultural events. Florida Department of Transportation Final Report. 34 pgs. Abstract: Florida Department of Transportation performed an experimental analysis of a series of changeable message signs functioning as freeway guide signs to assign traffic to Universal Theme Park via one of two eastbound exits based on traffic congestion at the first of the two exits. An examination of crashes along the entire route indicated a statistically significant increase in crashes at the first eastbound exit following the actuation of the system. Behavioral analysis scored from videotapes of driver behavior at the first eastbound exit, revealed that the reassignment of the theme park exit was associated with an increase in the percentage of motor vehicle conflicts such as the percentage of vehicles cutting across the exit gore and the percentage of motorists making unsafe lane changes in the immediate vicinity of the exit. A human factors analysis revealed that the method used for switching the designated or active A-20 theme park exit on the series of changeable message signs led to the presentation of conflicting • messages to some motorists. The second experiment evaluated the use of a phased method of switching the designated theme park exit to eliminate the delivery of conflicting messages. The new method for switching the designated theme park exit was not associated with an increase in motorists cutting across the exit gore or unsafe lane changes. Based on the results obtained in the second experiment, it is recommended that the system used to assign the active exit based on traffic congestion be added to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A third experiment evaluated the use of changeable message signs to provide information on cultural events in the Orlando area at a single exit (eastbound and westbound). These signs were not associated with an increase in crashes. It is also recommended that this use for changeable message signs be added to the MUTCD Wachtel, J. (1981). Electronic advertising along highways --concern for traffic safety. Public Roads, 45(1), pgs. 1-5. Abstract: Developments in electronics, computers, and communications are being applied to traffic signs. One of the most advanced developments is the lamp matrix system, which is one form of a commercial electronic variable message sign (CEVMS). Although a 1978 amendment to the Highway Beautification Act legitimized commercial signage using the latest technology, earlier federal laws still in force prohibited signs illuminated by flashing, intermittent, or moving light or signs that move or have animated or moving parts. The Federal Highway Administration • through research and field observations demonstrated that CEVMS's have the potential for animation and for flashing, moving, and intermittent message presentation, and some operating signs already display these characteristics. In addition a correlation was established between roadside advertising and traffic accidents. Wachtel, J., and Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and environmental design consideration in the use of commercial electronic variable -message signage. Federal Highway Administration Final Report: FHWA-RD-80-051, 101pgs. Abstract: This study reviews existing reported research and experience regarding use of commercial electronic variable -message signs (CEVMS), and evaluates research findings and methods in terms of implications for highway safety and environmental design. Aspects of CEVMS design and use that are capable of adversely affecting highway safety and/or environmental quality are identified and discussed in terms of the adequacy of existing research and experience to permit formulation of quantified standards for safe and environmentally compatible use. This report notes, with illustrations, the principal forms of variable -message signage developed for official traffic control and informational use, and the major forms of variable -message signage utilizing electronic processes or remote control for display of commercial advertising and public service information in roadside sites. Studies of highway safety aspects of outdoor advertising, which are based on analysis of accident data, are evaluated and reasons for apparent conflicts of their findings are discussed. Studies of highway safety aspects of outdoor advertising generally and CEVMS specifically based on human factors research and dealing with distraction and attentional demands of driving tasks are discussed in relation to issues involved in the A-21 • development of standards.. Wallace, B. (2003a). Driver distraction by advertising: genuine risk or urban myth? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 156, Issue ME3 Pgs. 185 —190. Available at: http://cogprints.org/3307/01/driverdistractionarticle.�df Abstract: Drivers operate in an increasingly complex visual environment, and yet there has been little recent research on the effects this might have on driving ability and accident rates. This paper is based on research carried out for the Scottish Executive's Central Research Unit on the subject of external -to -vehicle driver distraction. A literature review/meta-analysis was carried out with a view to answering the following questions: is there a serious risk to safe driving caused by features in the external environment, and if there is, what can be done about it? Review of the existing literature suggests that, although the subject is under -researched, there is evidence that in some cases over complex visual fields can distract drivers and that it is unlikely that existing guidelines and legislation adequately regulate this. Theoretical explanations for the phenomenon are offered and areas for future research highlighted. Wallace, B. (2003b). External -to -vehicle driver distraction. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit Report. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/finance/evdd-00.asp isAbstract: This report presents the findings of a literature review of all available literature published in English since 1945 on the subject of external -to -vehicle driver distraction. The report as carried out by Human Factors Analysts Ltd. (HFAL) on behalf of the Scottish Executive between December 2002 and March 2003. The research consisted of three main elements. First, a general review of the literature pertaining to driver distraction. Second, a review of literature specifically concentrating on external -to -vehicle distraction. And finally, a review of literature pertaining to billboards and signs as an external distracter; in an attempt to discover whether there is evidence that billboards and signs are a contributory factor to road accidents. Walton, J.R., Barrett, M.L., and Crabtree, J.D. (2001). Management and effective use of changeable message signs. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, KTC-01-14/SPR233-00-IF, Final Report. 51 pgs. Abstract: Changeable message signs (CMSs) are used to communicate accurate, timely, and pertinent information to travelers on Kentucky's roadways. This information helps travelers avoid hazards or delays and respond properly to changing roadway conditions. In an ideal environment, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) would be able to allocate CMSs to various areas of the state based upon changing needs. The location of each sign would be monitored, and the . message could be controlled and checked remotely. Currently these capabilities do not exist. KYTC has four different types of portable CMSs in use throughout the state. Each type has different internal and external interfaces, and each requires different replacement parts. Also, there is no policy or guidelines in place for the use of these signs. The decision on how and when A-22 the CMSs are used is made at the district level on a case -by -case basis. This research effort • includes an evaluation of Kentucky's current inventory and usage of CMSs, identification of key issues associated with the signs, and identification of state and regional policies on the management and use of CMSs. Recommended guidelines for the management and use of CMSs are included in this report. Yager, D., Aquilante, K., and Plass, R. (1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38, pgs. 2527-2531. Abstract: Compared reading speed in 46 normally sighted high school and optometry students with two fonts, Dutch (serif) and Swiss (sans serif). Text was displayed on a computer monitor, white letters on black, with the RSVP method. Luminance of the letters was either 146.0 or 0.146 cd/m2. Lower-case x-height of the fonts was approximately 5.5 times as large as letter acuity. At the high luminance, there was no difference between reading rates. There was a significant advantage for the Swiss font at the low luminance. The acuity reserve for Swiss was higher than for Dutch at the low luminance, which may account for the difference in reading speeds. Young, S. (2004). Visibility achieved by outdoor advertising. Perception Research Services Summary Report. Available at: http://www.prsresearch.com/articles/visibility_achieved by_outdoor ad.htm • Abstract: Perception Research Services of Fort Lee, NJ, implemented a pilot study of attention to outdoor advertising, as documented via the use of PRS ShopperVision eyeglasses, i.e., the recording of passengers' seeing experience while traveling in an automobile on a high speed interstate highway. Fifty licensed drivers were interviewed (25 men and 25 women). All were between the ages of 18 and 70, with one-third 18 to 34, one-third 35 to 49, and one-third 50 to 70. Each participant was in an automobile (wearing PRS ShopperVision eye glasses) for a 30-minute highway drive. The drive took place in northern New Jersey along Interstates 95 and 80. Twenty- eight (28) boards were posted along these highways. 74 percent of boards in the rider's field of view were noted and 48 percent of the boards in the rider's field of view were read. Zwahlen, H.T., Sunkara, M., and Schnell, T. (1995). Review of legibility relationships within the context of textual information presentation. Transportation Research Record, No. 1485, pgs. 61-70. Abstract: An extended review of the relevant legibility literature was conducted to provide normalized legibility performance data for a comparison and consolidation of past legibility research. The data were normalized by expressing the legibility performance in terms of visual angle subtended by the character height. The data revealed large variations in visibility performance among the • reviewed studies, despite similar or even identical experimental treatments. The normalized data were grouped into sets, relating the visual angle to the width -to -height ratio W/H, the intercharacter spacing -to -height ratio S/H, and the stroke width -to -height ratio SW/H, for both A-23 • negative and positive contrast. Second -order polynomial least -squares functions were established to obtain a proposed and tentative functional relationship between the visual angle and W/H, S/H, and SW/H. As expected the data indicated that positive -contrast characters generally require smaller stroke widths than negative -contrast characters and that more widely spaced characters show an increased legibility over closely spaced characters. The present investigation provides display designers with proposed and analytical functional relationships between legibility performance (visual angle) and typographical properties. 10 It A-24 • • • • UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 21 1 Radcliffe Street Bristol, PA 19007-5013 (215) 785-1922 FAX (21 5) 788-8395 www.ussc.org MEMBER RESOURCE FOLIO / LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION ON -PREMISE COMMERCIAL SIGNS AND DRIVER INFORMATION LOAD Researched and Written by Philip M. Garvey Pennsylvania State University The Pennsylvania Transportation Institute It has been suggested that, either through a proliferation of signs or too much information on individ- ual signs, on -premise commercial signs can result in a phenomenon known as "driver information over- load." Driver information overload has been defined as `providing a motorist with too much information, through a series of devices or conditions, for a driver to have adequate time to perceive and respond properly." (Lerner, et al., 2003). These researchers described driver information load as being com- prised of Information Search Demand, which incorporates the specific sign or sign array being attended to and the general visual environment in which the sign is located, and Driving Task Demand, which includes the number of roadway geometric features (e.g., curves and lane drops), traffic volume, and travel speed. In a review of the literature on this topic Lerner and his colleagues concluded, "The information load imposed by a given array of information is not simply a function of the total number of 'bits' of informa- tion contained within the array, " and "The ability of the driver to 'shed' irrelevant or lower priority infor- mation is an important attribute." In evaluating information overload, another researcher (Gordon, 1981) similarly concluded, "The view that overload is simply accounted for by the amount of displayed sign information is naive. Information load is largely determined by what the driver does with the displayed information." Related to the issue of on -premise signs containing too much information, Gordon found that non -essential sign text does not increase sign scanning time. In other words, critical sign informa- tion is gleaned as quickly on signs that have superfluous secondary information as on signs that do not, and that non -essential items are simply skipped: "The eye scans [quickly] ... in search for the sought -for item. " While there have been numerous studies on the affect of highway sign content, display, and place- ment on driver information overload, there is less research related to on -premise commercial signs. A few conducted in the 1970's touched on this issue while evaluating the possible distraction effect of commercial signs. In a study on distraction by irrelevant information, Johnston and Cole (1976) con- cluded, "the human operator has the capacity to shed irrelevant information." Tindal 1977 (in Andreassen, 1985) found that drivers are more likely to ignore signs that are not relevant to the driving task and more likely to attend to signs that have a direct effect on driving performance. Sanderson 1974 (in Andreassen, 1985) reported that when an advertising sign was placed among traffic signs, the subject drivers had significantly greater recall of the traffic signs. In general, all these studies indicate that, while there may indeed be, too much information on any particular sign, or too many signs in a given visual area (commercial or otherwise), drivers are not required to attend to all signs or all portions of signs. If there is potential for information overload brought about by having too rhuch information on an individual commercial sign or by having too many commercial signs in an array, drivers will disregard those portions of the signs that are irrelevant and quickly scan past signs that do not match their search criteria. However, while on -premise commercial signs can contribute to the information load on a driver, because they are not necessary to the primary driving tasks of speed maintenance and lane position- ing, they are perhaps the first to be disregarded in an overload situation. As it has been established that commercial signs play an important role in traveler navigation and wayfinding, disregarding these signs will not be optimal from a safety and traffic flow perspective. It is therefore certainly disadvanta- geous, for highway safety reasons, to have commercial signs with information that is not legible to the • • driver.** In summary, the research on driver attention to road signs indicates that too much information on indi- vidual on -premise commercial signs and/or too many of these signs in a given area may lead to drivers disregarding some signs (mainly irrelevant signs) or some information on the signs (typically second- ary). How this will affect on -premise sign effectiveness and indeed what constitutes driver information overload for both on -premise and highway signs is still up to debate. Even at the end of their six -year research study, Lerner, et al. (2003) were unable to determine a "red line" above which information load becomes information overload on highway signs. As no research has been conducted on information load of on -premise commercial signs, it is impossible to state, with any confidence, what combination of sign content, sign array, driver and environmental variables constitutes information overload for these signs. References Andreassen, D.C. (1985). Technical Note No. 1: Traffic accidents and advertising signs. Australian Road Research, 15(2), 103-105. Gordon, D.A. (1981). The assessment of guide sign information load. Human Factors 23(4), 453-466 Johnston, A.W., and Cole, B.L. (1976). Investigations of distraction by irrelevant information. Australian Road Research, 6(3), 3-23. • • Lerner, N.D., Llaneras, R.E., McGee, H.W., Taori, S., and Alexander, G. (2003). Additional investigations on driver overload. Transportation Research Board National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Report 488 ** number of signs or "glut" of commercial signs along a given roadway is a function primarily of local zoning and business or office property development. If there are smaller commercial lots along a roadway (say with lot frontages of 50' - 75'), and each has a freestanding sign, these signs will be installed closer together. A roadway with commercial lot frontages of 125' - 200' will appear to have more relaxed sign spacing. Glut is not a technical word, whether positive or negative. Sign frequency and/or sign spacing is not a subjective matter but a function of the commercial development density and lot sizes. About The Author: Philip M. Garvey holds a BA degree in psychology from Lynchburg College and a MS in experimental psychology from Villanova University, Villanova, PA. He has worked as a Research Scientist special- izing in traffic safety and visual perception for a private consulting firm. Since 1994 Garvey has been a research investigator at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI). In this capacity he worked on research that result- ed in the development of the Clearview font which has recently been accepted by the Federal Highway Administration for use on all highway guide signs. Throughout his career in transportation research, Garvey has been involved in numerous research projects investigating human performance in the transportation environment. His expertise in the field of human interaction with the roadway environment led to his selection as chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Committee on User Information Systems as well as his recent nomination for the FHWA 2003 National Roadway Safety Award. Garvey was a panel member on a National Cooperative Highway Research Program project on driver information overload, has • • been accepted as an expert witness in human factors issues in transportation safety, and has written numerous papers and contributed to books on traffic sign visibility. © 2003 United States Sign Council Inc. All rights reserved. TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY A Research Project of The UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION by Albert M. Tantala, Sr., P.E. Peter J. Tantala, P.E. Michael W. Tantala, Ph.D. Candidate of "A TANTALA ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4903 Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19124-2693 T: 215.289.4600 - F:215.288.1885 - E: mail@tantala.com http://www.tantala.com Recommended citation: Tantala, A. et al., "Traffic Safety Study: An examination of the relationship between signs and traffic safety", Tantala Associates, Consulting Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Funded by the United States Sign Council Foundation, November 2003. © 2003 United States Sign Council Foundation. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDATION This research study, which examines the relationship between roadside signs and traffic safety, was published by the United States Sign Council Foundation as part of the its on -going effort to provide a verifiable body of knowledge concerning sign usage within the built environment. For further information concerning the United States Sign Council Foundation and its educational, research and public awareness activities, call, write, fax or e-mail The United States Sign Council Foundation 211 Radcliffe Street, Bristol, Pennsylvania 19007-5013 T: 215-785-1922 - F: 215-788-8395 — E: info@ussc.org http://www.ussc.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between roadside signs and traffic safety. This study was funded by a grant from the United States Sign Council Foundation (USSCF) as part of the Council's on- going effort to provide a verifiable body of knowledge concerning sign usage within the built environment. The first part of this study establishes statistical correlation coefficients between roadside signs and accidents along the New Jersey Turnpike. This study considers various situations, with and without interchange bias. The results are analyzed for a variety of commonly accepted scenarios relating accident density to sign -density (the number of signs), to Viewer Reaction Distance (how far from a sign the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign), and to sign proximity (how far the accident is from the nearest sign). The second part of this study examines the incidence of traffic accidents at a specific, recently installed sign and for a period of time both before and after the installation of the sign. 21 The results of this study indicate the following: • Correlation coefficients are statistical measures of the "association" between two sets of data, such as signs and traffic accidents. The correlation coefficients developed in this study consistently confirm, for more than four years of data (about 23,000 accidents), that the coefficient values are generally close to zero (between -0.098 to +0.219). The 1 correlation coefficients establish that no statistical relationship between signs and accidents exists. These correlation coefficients also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • Turnpike interchanges have the potential to unfairly bias the results because drivers undertake additional tasks, such as lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, and negotiating directions. If the data near Turnpike interchanges is excluded, then the correlation coefficients converge even more closely to zero (between -0.026 to +0.194). These data reinforces the premise that no statistical relationship between signs and accidents exists. The data also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • After the installation of a specific, roadside sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, the traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or week decreased and increased. These measures indicate no statistically significant changes in accident occurrences after the installation of another roadside sign at this busy intersection. The results of this study strongly conclude that roadside signs have no statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. Traffic accidents may be much more likely attributable to, and strongly correlated with, other factors, such as driver fatigue, poor road conditions, driver abilities, traffic volume, legitimate distractions, inter alia. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................... 3 LISTOF FIGURES........................................................................................ 5 LISTOF TABLES......................................................................................... 8 1. GENERAL COMMENTS......................................................................9 2. OBJECTIVE..........................................................................................10 3. SIGN -ACCIDENT CORRELATION...................................................11 A. Methodology......................................................................................11 (1) Road............................................................................................11 (2) Signs............................................................................................13 (3) Traffic Accidents.........................................................................19 B. Analysis..............................................................................................20 (1) Accident Density and Sign Density ................................................ 21 (2) Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) ............... 29 (3) Number of Accidents and Proximity to Signs ................................ 30 C. Results................................................................................................ 32 4. SPATIAL COMPARISON................................................................ 37 A. Methodology...................................................................................37 (1) Location....................................................................................... 37 (2) Sign............................................................................................. 39 (3) Traffic Accidents......................................................................... 39 3 B. Analysis..............................................................................................41 (1) Accidents -per -Volume (APV) Ratios.........................................42 (2) Histogram Comparison............................................................... 43 C. Results................................................................................................ 46 5. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................48 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................. 50 REFERENCES............................................................................................. 52 APPENDICES.............................................................................................. 54 APPENDIX A.1: Sign Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike .................... 55 APPENDIX A.2: Comparison of Sign Data with Number of Accidents for 1998-2001................................................................................................. 58 APPENDIX A.3 : Accident and Sign Density Figures ............................. 65 APPENDIX A.4: Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports for the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection................................................................................................ 77 0 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. New Jersey Turnpike...................................................................12 Figure 2. Typical Signs along the New Jersey Turnpike .............................15 Figure 3. Sign -Location Plan............................................................ Figure 4. Typical Sign -Location Data.........................................................18 Figure5. Sign Density................................................................................. 23 Figure 6. Comparison of Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker. 24 Figure 7. Aggregate Accident Density for 1998-2001................................ 25 Figure 8. Visual Interpretations of Correlation Coefficients..6.................... 27 Figure 9. Actual Correlation Coefficients for Various Relations ................ 28 Figure 10. Calculated Correlation coefficients with Interchange Bias ....... 35 Figure 11. Calculated Correlation coefficients without Interchange Bias.. 36 Figure 12. Aerial Photograph of Sign at the Lincoln Highway and WoodbourneRoad................................................................................. 38 Figure 13. Photographs of Sign at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road....................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14. Composite Weekly Histogram of Woodbourne Road and the Lincoln Highway Intersection Accidents in 2001-2002 ........................ 44 Figure 15. Weekly Histogram of (A) Woodbourne Road and (B) the Lincoln Highway Intersection Accidents in 2001-2002........................ 45 5 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Al-1. Sample of Survey Data of Sign on New Jersey Turnpike ...... 56 Figure Al-2. Survey Data of Signs on New Jersey Turnpike ...................... 57 Figure A2-1. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents withInterchange Bias............................................................................ 59 Figure A2-2. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias........................................................... 60 Figure A2-3. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias ....................................................... 61 Figure A2-4. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias....................................................................... 62 Figure A2-5. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias ...................................................... 63 Figure A2-6. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias .................................................. 64 Figure A3-1. Comparison of 1998-2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by MileMarker........................................................................................... 66 Figure A3-2. Aggregate Accident Densities (1998-2001) .......................... 67 Figure A3-3. Sign Density........................................................................... 68 Figure A3-4. Comparison of 1998 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker................................................................................................... 69 Figure A3-5. Accident Density for 1998..................................................... 70 2 LIST OF FIGURES continued Figure A3-6. Comparison of 1999 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker............................:...................................................................... 71 Figure A3-7. Accident Density for 1999..................................................... 72 Figure A3-8. Comparison of 2000 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker................................................................................................... 73 Figure A3-9. Accident Density for 2000..................:.................................. 74 Figure A3-10. Comparison of 2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker................................................................................................... 75 Figure A3-11. Accident Density for 2001................................................... 76 Figure A4-1.2001 and 2002 Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection............................................................................................ 78 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Number of Traffic Accidents on the New Jersey Turnpike ..........19 Table 2. Correlation Coefficient Results ..................................................... 26 Table 3. Traffic Accidents at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection............................................................................................ 41 Table 4. Accidents, Volume and APV at Woodbourne Road Intersection. 42 Table 5. Spatial Comparison Results.......................................................... 46 1. GENERAL COMMENTS The United States has millions of miles of roads, highways, streets, and other traveled ways used for the navigation of motor vehicles. Virtually all of these roads have some type of signage associated with them, whether the signs are directional, informational, regulatory, identifying, advertising, or other types. Signs are necessary in order to promote efficient navigation, to disseminate vital wayfinding or safety information, to identify locations or destinations, to regulate traffic, to advertise, etc. For these functions, signs and roads are inseparable. Unfortunately, traffic accidents on roads also occur in the millions annually. Accidents may be attributable to many factors, including poor road conditions, driver ability, traffic volume, distractions, inter alia. Although advertising signs account for only a small percentage of all signs along roads, advertising signs are often viewed as the chief cause of distraction -related accidents. For this reason, advertising signs are heavily regulated, even though the relationship between signs and traffic safety has not been comprehensively established. This study examines the relationship between signs and traffic safety, and evaluates the * correlation between signs and accidents for particular roads and conditions. 9 2. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between roadside signs and traffic safety. The study examines two situations which involve signs and traffic. In the first„situation, a highway with roadside signs is selected and ..................... studied, including analysis of sign location, road conditions, traffic -accident locations, inter alia, for the purpose of determining if traffic accidents are more prevalent at or near existing signs. This part of the study is called the Sign Accident Correlation part. Statistical correlation coefficients are used as the basis for comparison of the results. In„the„second„situation, the location of a recently installed sign is identified, and the incidence of traffic accidents near the sign is examined, for a time period both before and after the installation of the sign, for the purpose of establishing whether traffic accidents occurred more frequently in the presence of the sign. This part of the study is called the Spatial Comparison part. ME 3. SIGN -ACCIDENT CORRELATION The purpose of the Sign -Accident Correlation part of the study is to examine whether traffic accidents occur more frequently at or near signs on a specific roadway. Essentially, the Sign -Accident Correlation is a comparison of the location of signs and the location of accidents. These two sets of data are quantitatively compared using correlation coefficients. A. Methodology The procedure employed in this study involves collecting accident information for a given road, analyzing and assembling the information into useful data, identifying where advertising signs are located along the road, statistically analyzing the data by comparing the sign locations and the accident locations, and calculating correlation coefficients for these sets of data. (1) Road The roadway examined in this part of the study is the New Jersey Turnpike. The New Jersey Turnpike (Turnpike) was selected over other thoroughfares, for many reasons conducive to the study. The Turnpike, shown in Figure 1, is generally oriented northbound-southbound, is a limited -access highway servicing the entire state of New Jersey and through traffic, is operated by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, and is proximate 11 Berks New R�o Figure 1. New Jersey Turnpike York Queens 12 to several metropolitan areas, including New York City and Newark at its northern end, the state capital of Trenton near its central portion, and Philadelphia near its southern portion. The Turnpike is 113.8 miles long, and extends from the George Washington Bridge (New York State) at its north terminus, to State Route 130 near the Delaware Memorial Bridge (State of Delaware) at its south terminus (mile marker 0). The Turnpike also includes a 6.55-mile spur to its west which allows traffic to and from the Pennsylvania Turnpike. This study does not include the spur portion of the Turnpike. The Turnpike is a limited -access, toll highway, with 18 entrances/exits (interchanges) along its length; the average distance between interchanges is approximately five miles. Most of the road is divided, with five lanes of traffic in each direction; the northern portion of the highway is further divided, with traffic in each direction segregated into "cars only" and "car and truck" traffic lanes. The posted speed limit along the entire Turnpike is 65 miles per hour. Signage along the Turnpike is strictly regulated, and is subject to local permitting procedures, in addition to state and Turnpike Authority approval. (2) Signs Several types of signs exist along the Turnpike, including advertising signs, directional signs, informational signs, emergency signs, markers, inter alia. Figure 2 shows typical signs along the Turnpike. This study examines 13 only advertising signs, and only those signs which are intended to principally advertise to traffic on the Turnpike. The studied signs are graphically located in Figure 3 (each solid dot represents a sign); the signs are individually identified in Appendix A.1, and include both accessory (on -premise) and non -accessory (off -premise) signs. All the signs are freestanding structures, and almost all are double-faced, advertising to northbound and southbound traffic. Almost all the signs are either internally or externally illuminated; only a few are not illuminated. The number of studied signs is 123: 72 located to the east side of the Turnpike and 51 to the west side of the Turnpike. Twenty-one signs are accessory, 102 are non -accessory, and one sign had its head removed and was temporarily only a sign upright. The following assumptions are made concerning the signs. Because approximately 94% of the signs (116 of the 123) advertise to both northbound and southbound traffic, or have faces generally perpendicular to the traffic lanes, this study assumes that each of the studied signs has the potential to impact traffic safety on both northbound and southbound traffic within the view (or viewer -reaction) distance of the signs. 14 Figure 2. Typical Signs along the New Jersey Turnpike 15 Because approximately 92% of the signs (113 of the 123) are illuminated, this study assumes that all signs are illuminated and visible at all times. This study also assumes that each of the studied signs existed during the years for which traffic accidents were examined. The location of the signs was determined from field -investigation, by identifying the mile marker location (one tenth mile) of each sign; these locations are graphically located in Figure 3, the Sign -Location Plan. The Sign -Location Plan shows that the northern portion of the Turnpike has the highest density of signs, that the central portion has a low to moderate sign density, and that the extreme southern portion has very few signs. Straight-line diagrams, aerial photographs, GIS information, and field - data are used to analyze the location and characteristics of each sign. Figure 4 is a typical data sheet. Appendix A.1 provides detailed survey information. 16 Beft-. Bucks Salem umberland Sussex Warren J Morris Hunterdon / Somerset Mercer Burlington Atlantic Figure 3. Sign -Location Plan Monmouth •ra. a fangs and Queens 17 Sign ID: 14 Milemarker: 70.35 Direction North with North Read o Use: Non -Accessory Type: Single Face Dimensions: 14' x 48' Illumination: External Copy: Fennelley Real Estate Cranbury Two, M:ddh+ex Co Figure 4. Typical Sign -Location Data (3) Traffic Accidents Currently, more than 650,000 vehicles travel the New Jersey Turnpike each day. Traffic accident records for the Turnpike are available for certain time periods. Accidents have been recorded since the Turnpike's completion in 1951 by either the New Jersey Turnpike Authority or the New Jersey State Police. However, only accident data for the past ten years is readily obtainable or computerized. Detailed analysis and assembly of the data indicates that the only years for which reliable accident data is available, are 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Data for 2002 are not available. The total number of accidents for each of these years is listed in Table 1. In all, 22,971 accidents were included in this study. Only reported accidents are part of the study, and all data was obtained from either the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the New Jersey State Police, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Table 1. Number of Traffic Accidents on the New Jersey Turnpike Year Number of Accidents 1998 5,122 2000 6,204 Total 22,971 19 For each year, the accident data is segregated by mile marker (one tenth mile), and listed by the number of accidents which occurred at or near each mile marker. Listing the data in this fashion allows a parallel tabulation of sign -location by mile marker, and the subsequent comparison of these parallel sets of data. B. Analysis As stated, both the accident data and the sign locations are assembled, or listed, by mile marker, in order to form a basis for their comparison. Three comparisons of these variables are completed, including a comparison of - Accident -Density and Sign -Density, - Accident -Density and Viewer Reaction Distance, and - Accident -Density and Proximity to Signs. The above three comparisons are made for each of the four, examined years, and for the aggregate of the four years. A quantitative measure of how well the data compared is obtained by using a statistical correlation coefficient. The results of the correlation coefficient analysis and a discussion of correlation coefficients are in the Results section of this study. This study also examines a subset of traffic -accident data to assess its relationship to signage. Correlation coefficients are calculated with the same accident data, however excluding those accidents and signs near 20 Turnpike interchanges (entrances/exits) within one mile (y2 mile on each side of an interchange). Accident data near Turnpike interchanges have the potential to bias the results, because drivers undertake additional tasks such as lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, negotiating directions, attention to others undertaking additional tasks, inter alia. These added factors could bias and dilute a study of accident data when compared to typical conditions of straight driving without sources of potential distraction. (1) Accident Density and Sign Density This study defines accident density as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). The terms number of accidents and accident density are used interchangeably. The sign density, S,° , is defined as the number of signs per mile, and is determined using a moving average of the number of signs at each mile marker with a "window" size of one mile, and may be expressed by: SD = Q[s,lm-0.5Ss; <—m+0.5�, m = 0, O.1,L , M i=1 where s; is the ith sign's mile marker location, and Q is the number of signs observed along M, which is the total length of the Turnpike in miles. [The vertical line after s; in the above equation means "given that", and is not an absolute value symbol.] Individual locations of certain signs are shown in Appendix A.1 of this study (with aerials, photographs, diagrams and sign characteristics). 21 The sign density, that is, the average number of signs per mile, varies along the length of the Turnpike, and is shown graphically in Figure 5. The sign density varies from 0 to 9 signs per mile. If a noticeable correlation between signage and accidents exists, then we would expect a significantly larger number of accidents in areas with relatively high sign densities. Histograms illustrating the differences in sign densities and accidents along the Turnpike for data from 1998 to 2001 are shown in Figure 6. Figures 5 and 7 show similar data in the form of a mapped, density plot for sign and accident data along the Turnpike between 1998 and 2001. Comparisons of other histograms and density plots illustrating the differences in sign densities accident along the Turnpike for accidents representing each individual year between 1998 and 2001 are shown in Appendix A.3. Our basis for evaluating the relationship between sign locations and accident locations is the correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient (p) between sign density, S° , and accident density, A', may be calculated using: �(AD —AD)(SD —SD) �( m— AD)2(crD —SD m m �7 22 Sussex Monroe Passaic Bergen Carbon Warren Moms Essex Northampton Union Lehigh Hunterdon Somerset 'chmond ,` Berks lesex Bucks T Mercer 1 J N Monmouth A Montgomery N } Chester �; o Philadelphi 0 Delaware Burlington Ocean o Camden New C t1e Gloucester Sign high density Salem mberiand Atlantic Sign = o IOW Figure 5. Sign Density 23 i LOZGZC CO C N C) 800 U Q L 600 N .Q E Z 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker 8 7 6 CO C 0) 5 0� O � 4 N E 3 Z Sign Distribution 2- 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure 6. Comparison of Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 24 Sussex Monroe Bucks > N Mercer ' Monmouth Montgomery° ' �. N Chester \,P-hiladelphi Delaware i Burlington Ocean 4^ Camden New C Ue Gloucester Accident high density Salem Atlantic Sign = O mberiand low Figure 7. Aggregate Accident Density for 1998-2001 25 The correlation coefficients with their corresponding data are shown in Table 2 for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001, and from data plotted in Appendix A.2. These coefficients range from -0.098 to +0.219. Figure 8 shows commonly accepted interpretations of correlation coefficients and visual scatter plots to emphasis what various correlation coefficients might represent (Ang, 1975). To provide another sense of the value of correlation coefficients, Figure 9 shows historically observed correlation coefficients for a variety of other relationships. The Correlation coefficients excluding interchange bias are shown with their corresponding data in Table 2 for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001, and are calculated using data plotted in Appendix A.2. Table 2. Correlation Coefficient Results Comparison Aggregate 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998-2001 Accident Density and Sign +0.188 +0.140 +0.209 +0.119 +0.209 Density without interchange bias �� ��� r +0=077 41 f Y Accident Density and Viewer +0.180 +0.158 +0.212 +0.129 +0.219 Reaction Distance Accident Density and -0.076 -0.057 -0.098 -0.013 -0.077 Proximity to Sign without interchange bias -0.022 -0.061 -0.077 -0.050 -0.026 26 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association +0.3 no association C negative correlations have similar ranges Correlation Coefficient Scale +1.0 Visual Representation of Data with specific correlation +0.95 • • 0 0 exactly . �. M.p. • 00 • v -1.0 • Figure 8. Visual Interpretations of Correlation Coefficients 27 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association +0.3 no association 0 negative 0'" correlations have similar ranges Correlation Coefficient Scale +1.0 Measured Correlation Values +0.91 Bonuses vs. Annual Salary Goldman Sachs. 2000 +0.64 Rainfall in 30 minutes vs. Daily Rainfall Sandham et al, 1997 — +0.40 Years of education vs. Annual Salary Schaeffer et al. 2002 +0.37 Major League Baseball Player's RBI in a year vs. RBI of previous year Schall et al, 2001 1' Academic Performance Days absent vs. Final Grade Various Sources Figure 9. Actual Correlation Coefficients for Various Relations 28 (2) Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) Accident density, A,° , was previously defined as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) is a measure of the distance in which a driver has time to "notice" or react to a sign which is in the driver's field of vision. The VRD is the distance to a sign in which the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign. Analogously, Viewer Reaction Time (VRT) is the time a driver is within the "influence" of a sign. Reasonable values for VRD were previously determined in previous studies (USSC, reference), and are a function of the driver's speed. The posted speed limit on the Turnpike is 65 mph; this approximately corresponds with a VRD of approximately 0.2 miles and a VRT of 10 seconds. This study uses a binary index, V„" , to represent if a given mile marker is within the VRD, and is represented as 1 d <_ VRD V,n� _ m , m = 0, 0.1,L , M 0 otherwise where dis the distance to the nearest sign location for mth mile marker, VRD is 0.2 (the viewer reaction distance corresponding to a 10 second VRT at the 65 mph on the Turnpike), and M is the total length of the Turnpike in miles. The index dis defined as Id„, = min(llsi —ml ,i = 0,1,L ,Q}), m = 0, 0.1,L , M} al where s; is the ith sign's mile marker location and Q is the number of signs observed. The correlation coefficient between accident density, A', and viewer reaction distance, V' , is calculated similar to that which was previously defined. These correlation coefficients are shown with their corresponding data in Table 2, for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001, and is calculated from data plotted in Appendix A.2. Correlation coefficients excluding interchange bias are also shown with their corresponding data in Table 2 for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001. Correlation coefficients are determined for data that are within 0.2 miles of the nearest sign, based on the previous discussion of Viewer Reaction Distance. If a noticeable correlation exists between signage and accidents, then we would expect significant changes in the number of accidents occurring 0 to 0.2 miles from any sign. (3) Number of Accidents and Proximity to Signs Accident density, A,,, , was previously defined as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). An index, P,,, , is used to 30 represent proximity to signage, and is simply the distance from a individual mile marker to the nearest sign. P,,, may be expressed by: {P11 = Id, — ml , m = 09 0.1, L , M} where dis the distance to the nearest sign location for mth mile marker and M is the total length of the Turnpike in miles. The correlation coefficients between sign proximity indices, P , and accident density, A', are similar to that previously defined. Table 2 shows these correlation coefficients with their corresponding data for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001. These correlation coefficients are calculated using data which is plotted in Appendix A.2. Table 2 shows correlation coefficients excluding interchange bias with their corresponding data for the individual and aggregate years between 1998 and 2001. If a noticeable correlation exists between signs and accidents, then we would expect more accidents at locations which are closer to signs. Correlation coefficients are determined for data that are within. 0.4 miles of the nearest sign. Based on previous discussion of Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD), 0.4 miles is twice the 0.2 mile VRD value. If a noticeable correlation exists between signs and accidents, then we would expect significant changes in the number of accidents between the 0 and 0.2 mile range and the 0.2 and 0.4 mile range, and the correlation coefficient would be large (close to ±1.00). However, these correlation coefficients are actually close to zero, indicating almost statistical independence, or no 31 relationship or tendency for signs to influence traffic accidents. Further, when interchange bias is excluded, these correlation coefficients move closer to zero, again strongly suggesting no causal relationship. C. Results Our results seek to evaluate if road signs have an influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. As discussed, a useful measure of compliance ("association") between two sets of data (signs and traffic accidents) is the correlation coefficient. If the variables "tend" to go up and down together, then the correlation coefficient will be positive. If the variables "tend" to go up and down in opposition with each other, the correlation coefficient will be negative. By definition, a correlation coefficient can be no larger than +1, and can be no smaller than -1. Values at or near +1 indicate a perfect one- to-one correlation, and values at or near -1 indicating perfect inverse correlation. Values at or near zero indicate statistical independence of one set of data with respect to the other. Statistically, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 or smaller is considered to indicate "weak" correlations, at best, and does not indicate much difference from correlation coefficients of zero. It is important to note that correlation is not necessarily causation, even though it may be an indicator. 32 Table 2 lists the correlation coefficients obtained ,for the relationships examined in this study, namely: • Accident Density and Sign Density, • Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance, and • Accident Density and Proximity to Sign. As seen in Table 2 and Figure 10, the correlation coefficients for accident density and sign density are all statistically. low, with coefficients ranging from +0.140 to +0.209. When signs and accidents within one-half mile of interchanges are excluded, almost all of the coefficients are lower, and range from +0.077 to +0.199. Each of these coefficients indicates zero to : extremely weak correlation between the locations of signs and the locations of accidents. As shown in Figure 11 when interchange bias is excluded, the coefficients are generally closer to zero, further. suggesting that no statistical or causal relationship between sign density and accident density exists. The correlation coefficients results for accident density and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) vary between °+0.129 and +0.220. These coefficients are low, are close to zero, and correspondingly indicate less than marginal or no correlation between signs and accidents. Again; the coefficients are lower with the exclusion of interchange bias, further suggesting a lack of relationship or dependence between signs and accidents. 33 Each of the correlation coefficients for accident density and proximity to the sign is negative, indicating that a slight inverse correlation exists regarding sign locations relative to the location of accidents. In other words, the accident rate was higher at locations farther from the nearest sign, but only slightly. These negative coefficients are also close to zero, and we must, therefore, conclude statistical independence. Also of note is the fact that the correlation coefficients are relatively consistent from year to year within each category. No large increases or decreases in the coefficients exist from year to year. This consistency positively influences the confidence in the study results. 34 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association +0.3 no association 0 negative 0 correlations have similar ranges -1.0 Correlation Coefficient Scale +1.0 C Measured Correlation Values +0.219 Accident Density vs. Viewer Reaction Distance +0.209 Accident Density vs. Sign Density -0.077 Accident Density vs. Proximity to Sign Figure 10. Calculated Correlation coefficients with Interchange Bias 35 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association +0.3 no association 0 negative correlations have similar ranges Correlation Coefficient Scale +1.0 C Measured Correlation Values Correlation Coefficients are without interchange bias +0.194 Accident Density vs. Viewer Reaction Distance +0.193 Accident Density vs. Sign Density -0.026 Accident Density vs. Proximity to Sign Figure 11. Calculated Correlation coefficients without Interchange Bias 36 4. SPATIAL COMPARISON A. Methodology The purpose of this Spatial Comparison part of this study is to examine the incidence of traffic accidents at an intersection at a specific, recently installed sign and for an equal period of time before and after the installation of the sign, and to determine if traffic accidents occurred more frequently or less frequently with the presence of the sign. Sign data are statistically compared using histograms and average accident -per -volume (APV) ratios for one year before the sign was installed and for one year after the sign was installed. It should be emphasized that there were no other, substantial changes at the intersection where this selected sign is located, other than the installation of the selected sign, a slight increase in traffic volume, and the winter snowfall. (1) Location The selected sign is near the Oxford Valley Mall in Middletown Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The sign is at the northeast corner of the Lincoln Highway (U.S. Business Route 1) and Woodbourne Road. The intersection is controlled by a traffic light. Figure 12 shows the area, the intersection, and the sign. The sign was installed on or about January 28, 2002. 37 a� w55� *`� Sign Location 4wo�. E , *a (2) Sign The selected sign is a free-standing, double -face, accessory (on - premise) structure with two uprights. Each sign face is rectangular, measures 6 feet high by 15 feet wide, and has a sign -face area of 90 square feet. The top of the sign is approximately 25 feet above the grade adjacent to the sign. The sign faces are internally illuminated and include an electronic -message -panel display. The sign faces are oriented approximately perpendicular to the Lincoln Highway, and are intended to principally advertise to traffic on the Lincoln Highway, and secondarily advertise to traffic on Woodbourne Road. Figure 13 shows photographs of the sign. The findings at this location are particularly relevant because of the dynamic nature of the sign itself which, as noted, contains a high -contrast electronic -message -panel. Animation of this feature was observed to include varied aspects of simulated movement including scrolling, wipe -on, wipe -off, blending, and rapid copy variations involving different messages in a constantly changing mode of operation. (3) Traffic Accidents At the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road intersection, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) recorded an average, daily traffic -count of 18,500 vehicles in 2001 and 20,000 vehicles in 2002. Data were obtained from police accident reports which were provided by PennDOT for a period of one year before, and one year after, the sign installation at this intersection. 39 Figure 13. Photographs of Sign at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road ,E At this intersection, 68 accidents occurred in 2001, which is prior to the installation of the sign, and 60 accidents occurred after the sign installation, which approximately represents a one in a hundred thousand chance of an accident at this intersection based on average traffic volumes. The number of accidents for this part of the study is listed in Table 3 and compiled in Appendix A.2. Table 3. Traffic Accidents at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection Prior to Sign After Sign Totals (before 28Jan02) (after 28Jan02) the Lincoln Highway 35 33 68 Woodbourne Road 33 27 60 Totals 68 60 128 B. Analysis The accident data assembled for this part of the study are based on the proximity to the sign and on when the accident occurred. To examine how this one specific intersection is impacted by the introduction of a sign, comparisons were made of • changes in traffic accidents -per -volume (APV) ratios, and • histograms of the accident data on a temporal basis. 41 (1) Accidents -per -Volume (APV) Ratios A quantitative measure of comparing traffic safety is to use accidents - per -volume (APV) ratios. The APV ratio is calculated by Number of accidents Annual Traffic Volume Table 4 summarizes accidents, annual traffic volumes and APV ratios for the sign at the Lincoln Highway and Woodboume Road intersection for 2001 and 2002. The number of accidents decreased 11.8% from 2001 to 2002; the traffic volume also increased by 5.3%. If we compared the APV ratios, then the accident rate decreased by 16% after the introduction of the sign at this intersection. Table 4. Accidents, Volume and APV at Woodbourne Road Intersection Prior to Sign After Sign (before 28Jan02) (after 28Jan02) % change No. of Accidents 68 60 -11.8% Average Traffic Volume 6,935,000 7,300,000 +5.3% APV 0.00098% 0.00082% -16.3% Equivalent 1 in 101,985 1 in 121,666 42 (2) Histogram Comparison Using the summarized, PennDOT, accident -report data in Appendix A4, we show in Figure 14, the composite distribution of accidents before and after the installation of the sign (on or about January 28, 2002) as a weekly histogram for the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road intersection. Similar histograms for the separate roads are shown in Figures 15(A) and 15(B). A comparison of the histograms of accidents (on either a weekly or a daily basis) at the intersection in 2001 (before sign installation) and in 2002 (after sign installation), indicates no substantial change in accident patterns. The peak number of accidents on any given week decreased from 5 to 4, after the introduction of the sign at the intersection; the peak number on any given day decreased from 3 to 2. The number of accident -free days increased from 42 to 43; the number of accident -free weeks remained the same at 15. Based on the data, no significant change in accident occurrences can be attributed to the introduction of this roadside sign. It should also be noted that the later months of 2002, the year after the installation of the sign, had significantly greater snowfall. This additional snowfall could be an influencing factor of why the accident occurrence rates were not less than they already are (relative to those in 2001). This is evident because there are slightly more accidents in the winter months (generally weeks 40 to 52) of 2002 than in the rest of the year. 43 X d 5 `w 4 AveragePRIOR = 1.21 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30 weeks prior to sign I weeks after sign sign installated ± 28Jan02 Y 3 Q CD CD r� 2 S C a1 x CD � �x 0 z CD Q' Qn � o 0 v 4 CD cr Q- 3 NCD2 O O Q p' p. - 1 E z a -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 weeks prior to sign -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 weeks prior to sign sign installed ± 28Jan02 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 weeks after sign -5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 weeks after sign sign installed ± 28Jan02 C. Results The results suggest that roadside signs in and of themselves have no influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. The most useful measures of traffic -accident occurrence at any specific location (APV, peak daily accidents, peak weekly accidents, accident free days and accident free weeks) are evaluated and compiled in Table 5. After the introduction of this roadside sign, traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) decreased, the peak number of accidents on any given day or week decreased, the number of accidents -free days increased, and the number of accident -free weeks remained the same. These measures indicate no statistically significant changes in accident occurrences after the introduction of the roadside sign at this busy intersection. Accidents Table 5. Spatial Comparison Results Prior to Sign After Sign (before 28Jan02) (after 28Jan02) We Peak Dailv Accidents 3 2 Accident Free Days 42 43 The number of accidents was relatively steady from 2001 to 2002. No large increases or decreases occurred in the values from year to year. With 46 the exception of a new sign, there were no other changes at this intersection. No new buildings, changes in lane/intersection topography, zoning or traffic - light signalization/timing were introduced. The analysis reinforces the results of the Sign -Accident Correlation part of this study, that roadside signs in and of themselves have no influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. M 5. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study strongly conclude that roadside signs have no statistical influence on the occurrence of accidents. The following are the conclusions of this study. • Correlation coefficients are statistical measures of the "association" between two sets of data, such as signs and traffic accidents. The correlation coefficients developed in this study consistently confirm, for more than four years of data (about 23,000 accidents), that the coefficient values are generally close to zero (between -0.070 and +0.220). ® The correlation coefficients establish that no statistical relationship between signs and accidents exists. These correlation coefficients also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • Turnpike interchanges have the potential to unfairly bias the results because drivers undertake additional tasks, such as lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, and negotiating directions. If the data near Turnpike interchanges is excluded, then the correlation coefficients converge even more closely to zero (between -0.030 to +0.194). • The interchange bias -free correlation coefficients further reinforce the premise that no statistical relationship between signs and accidents exists. These data also strongly suggest that no causal relationship between signs and accidents exists. • After the installation of the specific, roadside sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, the traffic volume increased, the APV (accident rate) decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or week decreased and the number of days without accidents increased. • After the installation of the specific, roadside sign at a Pennsylvania intersection, histogram analysis indicates no statistically significant changes in accident occurrences after the installation of the roadside sign at this busy intersection. Traffic accidents may be much more likely attributable to, and strongly correlated with, other factors, such as driver fatigue, poor road conditions, driver abilities, traffic volume, legitimate distractions, inter alia. DEFINITIONS Accessory sign - A sign relating in its subject matter to the lot or tract on which it is located, or to products, accommodations, services or activities on the premises on which it is located Accident Density - the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile) along a road or highway Accidents -per -Volume (APV) Ratio - A quantitative measure of traffic safety for a specified road or portion of road, which is the ratio of the number of accidents to the annual traffic volume Correlation Coefficient — a statistical measure of the "association" between two sets of data Interchange Bias — the potential for additional tasks which drivers undertake at interchanges/intersections to contribute to the occurrence of an accident. These additional tasks may include lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, negotiating directions, attention to others undertaking additional tasks, inter alia. Limited -Access Highway - a highway especially designed for through traffic and over, from or to which owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons have no right or easement or only a limited right or easement of access, light, air, or view by reason of the fact that their property abuts on such limited access highway or for any other reason Non -accessory - A sign other than an accessory sign 50 DEFINITIONS (continued) Sign - Any privately owned permanent or temporary device, placard, painting, drawing, poster, letter, word, banner, pennant, insignia, trade flag, or representation used as or which is in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, or direction which is on a public way or on private property within public view of a public way Sign Density — the number of signs per mile marker (every tenth of a mile) along a road or highway Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) - a measure of the distance in which a driver has time to "notice" or react to a sign which is in the driver's field of vision. The VRD is the distance to a sign in which the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a sign. A posted speed limit of 65 mph usually corresponds to a VRD of approximately 0.2 miles. Viewer Reaction Time (VRT) — a measure of the time during which a driver is within the "influence" of a sign. A posted speed limit of 65 mph usually corresponds to a VRT of approximately 10 seconds. 51 REFERENCES Ang, A., W. Tang, Probabili . Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1975. Federal Highway Administration, "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable -Message Signage", Report No. FHWA/RD-80/051, 1980. Garber, N. and L. Hoel, Traffic and Highway En ing eering, PWS Publishing, 2nd edition (Revised Printing), 1999. Garvey, P, Thompson -Kuhn, B, & Pietrucha, M., "Sign Visibility Research and Traffic Safety", United States Sign Council, 1996. Harr, M., Reliability Based Design in Civil En ing eering, General Publishing Company, Ltd., 1987. Modarres, M., M. Kaminsky, V. Krivtsov, Reliability Engineering _ and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1999. Montgomery, D., G. Runger, N. Hubele, Engineering Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Weather Data for Pennsylvania, 2001 and 2002. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the New Jersey State Police, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Jersey Turnpike Accident data for 1998 to 2001 obtained from New Jersey Government Records Council under the Open Public Records Act, (ORPA), 2003. O'Connor, P., Practical Reliability Engineering, Heyden and Sons, Inc., 1981. 52 PennDOT, Bureau of Planning and Research, Transportation Planning Division in Cooperation with the FHWA, 2001 Traffic Volume Map for Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 2000 and 2001. Township of Middletown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, "Building and/or Zoning Permit" No. 20004, Issued 28Jan02. 53 APPENDICES APPENDIX A.1: Sign Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike APPENDIX A.2: Comparison of Sign Data with Number of Accidents for 1998-2001 APPENDIX A.3: Accident and Sign Density Figures APPENDIX A.4: Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports for the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection 54 55 Sign ID: 14 Milemarker: 70.35 Direction North with North Read Use: Non -Accessory Type: Single Face Dimensions: 14' x 48' Illumination: External Copy: Fennelley Real Estate Twp, MiM.— Ca n Figure A 1-1. Sample Survey Data of Sign on New Jersey Turnpike 56 Sign Milepost Route Facing Paces Sign Shape Use Dimensions Illumination Owner Owner Number Page Note (ra ID Direction Direction DFlSF V F T A.NA of Face CD 0.6000 S NS DF Y NA 14x4S Y, Ext Mice's Famous 3 30,2000 N S jo S SF F NA 9x12 N Sunoco r N 5 44,3000 N NS DF F A 12x18 N Howard JDtrlaon'a 7 44.5000 S; . NS OF F A 16M Y, ko Eoonolodge Al 9 53.0000 S NS OF V NA 20x80 Y tnlara4ade D 11 50,7000 N N SF F A 202 N Suir000 now im 13 02.4200 4 NS OF V NA 2040 Y sowelon ON* MM 15 70.8000 � S NS _ DF F NA 20x80 Y EA Viacom Roonm Park NOWN 17 71.1500 v N SF F A 12x40 N Cj"W ar4 Vih &Wd 19 71.8500 S S DF F A 12x9 Y, ho Summ 21 72,4000 S NS DF V NA 14x48 Y, Ext Elirev Holidev Inn 23 72.8000 S NS DF V NA 1048 Y, E)d Ekav full Body Health 25 73.1700 S NS DF V NA 14x48 Y, Ead Clear Channel Jack Daniels UQ 27 74.7300 N NS DF V NA UAS Y, End Clear Channel 032115 rA 29 75.0000 S NS OF V NA 14x4$ Y, FA Matrix Maim Sole O 31 752700 N NS DF V NA 1448 Y, Ext Carole NJ tot 33 78.2000 N NS DF V NA 1408 Y, Ext Carole AppleVem �Z! C 35 77.9000 N NS DF V NA 14x48 Y, End M1111b1x OW Road e--r CD �-t 37 78.3000 N " N SF F NA 12* N Sunoco iA 39 80.9700 N NS DF V NA 1408 Y. Ext Morel Read Hebrew �-] 41 83.1000 N NS DF V NA 14XO Y Ext NendMedle 077 Netdea 43 88AM N NS OF V NA 14x48 Y, E1d Clow ChmW 032103 SW 45 91.2000 MID N SF F NA 12x9 N Sunoco NS ' CD In v APPENDIX A.2 Comparison of Sign Data with Number of Accidents for 1998-2001 Sign Density and Number of Accidents Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents 58 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.2090 600 500 - - - c ♦ m 400 - -� Q ♦ 0 300 200 ♦ • - S = Z 100 • 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density 1998 p = 0.1876 1999 p = 0.1398 180 160 140 120 U Q 100 0 80 60 n 40 Z 20 0 160 140 120 U Q 100 0 80 60 = 40 Z 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density Sign Density 2000 p = 0.2093 2001 p = 0.1193 250 inn c 200 v 150 Q m 100 � 50 Z 0! 9 y 9 9 0 9--q, 1 0, o f f , 9 1 i1P • 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density Sign Density Figure A2-1. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias W Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.2164 600 500 d 400 U Q a 300 `m 200 Z 100 0 0 1 1998 p = 0.1803 180 160 E 140 120 �U Q 100 0 80 60 � 40 Z 20 0 0 2000 250 W c 200 N v U Q 150 `o d 100 M E Z 50 0 0 1 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) p = 0.2123 1 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) 1999 p = 0.1580 180 160 - - 140 - v 120 U ♦ Q100 --♦ 0 80 -- 60 — ♦ - Z 20 - - -- - 0 0 1 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) 2001 p = 0.1289 300 250 y c v 200 U a 150 o ♦ 100 0 E Z 50 0 0 1 1 2 Distance with VRD (Miles) Figure A2-2. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias W 1998 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = -0.077 600 500 a� 400 U Q 0 300 `m E 200 z 100 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) p = -0.076 1999 180 180 160 160 140 C 140 v 120 120 U U Q 100 Q 100 0 80 0 80 60 60 40 ♦ = 40 z 20 ♦ z 20 0 0 0.0 p = —0.057 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 2000 p = —0.098 250 4 200 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 2001 p = -0.013 300 0 250 c v 200 U a 150 0 100 E z 50 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) Figure A2-3. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents with Interchange Bias M Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.1930 600 500 a0 a 400 U 0 300 d 200 D Z 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 1998 p = 0.1993 160 - 140 �, cD 120 100 80 0 60 40 Z ♦ • 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 1 Sign Density 2000 p = 0.1949 180 160 U) 15 140 , 120 .0 ¢ 100 0 80 E 60 S Z 40 20 0 0 Sign Density 1999 p = 0.0972 120 100 a) 080 Q • 060 a5 40 E Z 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density 2001 p = 0.0769 160 140 c 120 ♦ 100 Q 0 80 60 Z40 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Sign Density Sign Density Figure A2-4. Aggregate (1998-2001) Sign Density and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias 62 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = 0.1937 300 250 m 200 U Q 0 150 d 100 Z 50 0 ' •i 0 20 40 60 80 100 Distance with VRD (Miles) 1998 p = 0.1752 1999 p = 0.1171 1so 140 120 Yi 100 Q c 80 $ 60 40 2 20 0 �v 120 c 100 Q 80 0 60 E 40 Z 20 0 0 20 4 60g0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 8istance with VRD (Miles) Distance with VRD (Miles) 2000 p = 0.1810 2001 p = 0.0902 ion c 100 80 Q 0 60 m 'a E 40 Z 20 0 140 ql m 120 100 a 80 0 60 E 40 Z 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Distance with VRD (Miles) Distance with VRD (Miles) Figure A2-5. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance with VRD and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias 63 1998 120 100 c v 80 U U a 60 O 40 E Z 20 0 0.0 2000 too v, 120 100 a 80 ° 60 N E 40 Z 20 0 0.0 Aggregate (1998-2001) p = —0.026 160 - 140 — - • a� 120 -- U 100 - ° 80 - a� E 60 - ---- -- - -�- - Z 40 ---_ — 20 L-- 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) p = —0.022 1999 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 p = —0.061 ♦ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) p = —0.077 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 600 zoo �00 U Q '800 po 2i00 0 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) 2001 p = —0.050 W eLi iiA+ir7+..-J 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance to Nearest Sign (Miles) Figure A2-6. Aggregate (1998-2001) Distance to Nearest Sign and Number of Accidents without Interchange Bias Cy sajnSi3 4isuaQ u2iS put, luop!ooV EX XI(Imaidv iI16TO C U� 800 U Q 600 E Z 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker 8 6 _0) 5 O 4 N E 3 Z 2 1 0 0 Sign Distribution 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-1. Comparison of 1998-2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker .. Monroe \Sussex / �Pa Bergen Carbon Warren Morris Essex York Northampton Queens Union r iGngs Lehigh Hunterdon Somerset chmond Queens Beriks M61esex N ti Bucks f Mercer Monmouth Montgomery Chester- Miladelphi �h Delaware Burlington Ocean Camden / Accident high New C tie Gloucester density Salem Sign = o .� mberland Atlantic SOW Figure A3-2. Aggregate Accident Densities (1998-2001) 67 Monroe Northampton Lehigh Chester ;�Dlelaware New Sussex Warren � Morris Hunterdon / Somerset Bucks Burlington Camden Gloucester Salem Atlantic mberiand Essex Kings Queers ' N A Monmouth N N O N O O LO Ocean o Sign high density Sign = o low Figure A3-3. Sign Density 250 c 200 O Q 150 O L � 100 RIA 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker 8 6 c 5 (n O 4 L N E 3 Z 2 1 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-4. Comparison of 1998 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker Figure A3-5. Accident Density for 1998 A high low 70 250 C 200 O .O .0 Q 150 O i N .0 E 100 z 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 8 6 CO c 5 CA O 4 O E 3 z 2 1 00 Mile Marker 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-6. Comparison of 1999 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 71 Sussex Monroe Carbon Warren Morris Northampton i% Lehigh I—eN Hunterdon Somerset Bucks Montgomery Chester Philadelphi Delaware Camden New C ile Gloucester Salem /mheria,\d Mercer Burlington Atlantic Essex UUn-i�onn IGngs chmond Queens /IM N Monmouth A r n 2 C 47 Ocean 0 Accident high density Sign = o low Figure A3-7. Accident Density for 1999 72 350 N 4— C 300 O 70 c� 250 a ° 200 a� E 150 O Z 100 50 0 0 s s W C _0) 5 O 4 O E 3 Z 2 1 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 Sign Distribution Mile Marker 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-8. Comparison of 2000 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 73 Sussex Monroe Passaic Bergen Carbon Warren Morris x Essex r York Northampton Queens t ; Union Kings Lehigh Hunterdon Somerset 'chmond Queens r: = n ,f Berks Ml'd'dlesex Bucks f N Mercer Monmouth a, Montgomery � N O Chester Philadelphi 0 Delaware Burlington Ocean Camden New C tle Gloucester Accident high density Salem Atlantic Sign = 0 mbed nd low Figure A3-9. Accident Density for 2000 74 J 350 300 C N U 250 Q O 200 O E 150 Z 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker f c 5 O 4 N i✓ 3 Z 6 1 0 0 Sign Distribution 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mile Marker Figure A3-10. Comparison of 2001 Accidents with Sign Locations by Mile Marker 75 Sussex Monroe Carbon 1 Warren Moms Northampton U Lehigh Hunterdon Somerset Berks ese Bucks Mercer Montgomery Chester Philadelphi (� Delaware �Burlington Camden New C tle Gloucester Salem Atlantic Zmbedand Essex Monmouth Ocean Ir IGngs and Queens Accident high density Sign = 0 low Figure A3-11. Accident Density for 2001 76 LL uoilo3si3jul puo-d 3tunogpoorn puv At'mgSIH ulOOuirl aqj joj spo&W luap!ooV aoilod Z pQuuad uuoij vivo luap!ooV pallduuoD b'H XIQNaddv 2001 Accidents 2(H)2 Accidents No. Date of Accident Principal Location No. Date of Accident Principal Location I 1'2'W \\—)dhourric. Road 64 1 , tit Woodbmii no R oad 2 1 ?'Q I \\ .iodbouirnc Road 65 1 15,'02 South Woodbournc Road ul I -I,t I ui,uln \\1,1,Jh„nnlc R,,;1J 4 1 6-01- Last Lincoltu lliChK }y 67 1>25f )2 South Woodbournc Road I t, ill \oiih \\ oodhwmi R„aJ r•� 1'- 11' �,itlih \V"„1ulhlnu nc R,� 1d 6 1/13101 East Lincoln Highway - �b t>9 1 31 02 South Woodbourne Road I _, 1 I}I �„Lltlt AV"1,,,Jhlnuu� k,laJ ,11 _' � +1' I ,1�t 1.lncoln I II_hvt_1� 8 2:3101 East Lincoln 11i"hwily 71 113,02 South W,' odbournc Road i11 I;I-t 1.11"(1I11 111e11 ;i .1 `: 72 2 1 Ili 1 .1'1 I_in} )III IIIL'liNA I,A 1t) 17 Last Lincoln Hi;'lh\\au NO 73 ;2 _'s 02 South \i'cx+dtixiri}c Road II ,I1 A\ 1,,, I1) I"IIIic Ro,id 7-4 1 14 0' 1-1n1 I inroln 111 11nvJ� 1' ?t 1Is'01 East Lincoln Hi�shwwa , 75 3 1ir02 East Lincoln Highway 1 ; 21S M I._u1 I.in:oln 111- ?r, 3' ; rt' I 'I,t I incohl IIiJI«:n 13 2 2S 01 East Lincoln F1i._I,\\a. 77 ;21 u2 Last Lincoln Hrghwa\ I1 �,a1tL W r„t�Ihutun� R1,.IJ ' 4 It) rI' LJ,1 I nl,in I IIA'AA_IA I6 i,1 0101 SOU111 Woodbot€rne Road 79> 4 2;3,02 South Woodbournc Road iYi I th 1L ao1_Ihourtic Ro,IJ !+0 4 ,; n' 1..}st I incohl I I I IIvc;n 11 1121-;01 SOUth Woodboun}e Road 81 42t)!02 South Woodbourne Road i`1 "I III I_--1,t I nituhl F1lclra.r•. S' s+1' �,ngli A\11,ttlh,lurllc R,iaJ 20 3 3 L,01 Fast Lincoln Highway 83 East Lincoln Highua} 1 ? 1 ill Ro.iJ S } n > u' "uuih \\„ LII'1uu nc RIKLJ 22 4 1 01 East Lincoln Highway -,, 85 South \v'oodhourne Road -1 r1!tl FA.I 11[,, 111 llielr,,.r= ah 111I' \lull', A\u1lJhuurlic R,,:1J 24 4 " o t "Huth WoodhoUnic Road 87 t t 1 02 L1ist Lincoln Highway : 4 111 '1t1,It11 \\. UOJh„LII I kojd i1:1 (�'� I)_, �otllb \\tlOd b of I 1'1)c Ro1d 26 4%>b 01 South WoodbOUrric Road '' 8,L) 6/2T(Q East Lincoln Highway -1ttl I..I.t I_uicrll11IIt,_hu.r� Vlt - I it' \,,rlh \\,,,,Jhlnnnc Rt,aI 'S s I+OI South t�(vidboumc Road 41 7'I 02 North Woodbournc Rood ,b 01 South Woodbourne Road 93 1 i:ii2 South Woodbourne Road A\tx,tlhl,l-Ilnc R,,,1J 94 '_ n' 1 Lilt I In, do Ill�hv,_i t I ttl Fast Lincoln Hihi:ty 9ti 7,2702 South \t ulrtll>otrrric Rt>ald 1 ul `+,pith \\nodhluunc Ro,1J €- S S It' 1Voodl",utnc R1aul , 4 11 '3 01 Fast Lincoln Highway 9 8li 02 South Woodbourtic Road (11 1'-;1�[ I.Ilis lllll 111;_li\\.1`: 11� \ I) 11' 1Gi 11111 \\ l 11di'OHI llc R,,.I�) East Lincoln Highway 99 Si 10i02 South Woodbourne Read r, 01 I :i.t lUU X `: U' I all Linc„ In Ill�h,l:n 3ti " 14r01 North Woodbourne Road 101 9 4/02 Woodbournc Road i •) III `'Loth \\„odh,nnnc R1,.I,1 II1' , 6 1t' I a't I_InC„In 111�h,c:.r_v 40 �20'01 South Woodbounic Rood 103 9!902 Woodbournc Road 41 7 '(1 111 I::hl I uic,lln I Ir�_l�. 1n4 1 ` 1), 1.1ti1. I utruln III_liyy.Iv 42 ;\ 2101 North Woodbourne Road 105 9/23'02 Exist Lincoln Itizhwcati 4; S `ul \\„1„_lb„urnc Roof lilt, '411' L.Ist I incoln III_I'1,.v_Iv 44 8/24 01 East Lincoln Highway ," 107 9'18`02 Exist Lincoln IIighway 41 - 111 �-ntlth \\,nlJhounic Road IIIS In Road 1': 46 ) G)r01 South Woodbourric Road 109 10118 02 : North WoodbourneRoad Figure A4-1. 2001 and 2002 Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection in 2M I Accidents LIL Date of Accident Princimil Location 47 9/19/01 East Lincoln Highway 49 10/8/01 East Lincoln Highway 51 10/14/01 East Lincoln Highway 53 10/31/01 East Lincoln Highway 55 11 /9/01 East Lincoln Hiwav 57 11/23/01 East Lincoln Highway 59 12/10/01 East Lincoln Highway 61. 12/20/01 South Woodbourne Road 63 12/26d01 East Lincoln Highway 2002 Accidents NLq, Date of Accident Principal Location 110 10,125/02 East Lincoln Highway 112 1.0/:30/02 East Lincoln Highway 114 1.1/9/02 Woodbourne Road 116 11/16/02 East Lincoln Highway 118 11/29/02 Fast Lincoln Highway 120 1216/02 East Lincoln Highway 122 12/7/02 East Lincoln Highway 124 12/11/02 North Woodbourne Road 126 .12/14/02 South. Woodbourne Road 128 12/28/02 East :Lincoln Highway Figure A4-1 (continued). 2001 and 2002 Compiled Accident Data from PennDOT Police Accident Reports at the Lincoln Highway and Woodbourne Road Intersection 79 UNITED STATES SIGN COUNCIL FOUNDA' oar IMM-11 RON CCWTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 ow December 21, 2005 Robert Moran, President Holiday Signs 11930 Old Stage Rd. Chester, VA 23836 RE: APPEAL #26-05 Dear Mr. Moran: FAX: 540/665-6395 This letter is to confirm that the above -referenced appeal application was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals at their meeting on December 20, 2005. Your application appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator as to the use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) and EMD (Electronic Message Display) signage in Frederick County, on property located at 1400 Tasker Road, bearing Property Identification Number 75-A-105D, in the Opequon Magisterial District. The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to allow the above referenced signage with the condition that the EMD can only change every two (2) minutes. If you have any questions regarding this action, please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, *arkR.ran Zoning and Subdivision Administrator MRC/bad cc: Jane Anderson, Real Estate John Trenary, Inspections JEM VII, LLC, PO Box 3538, Gastonia, NC 28054 ICON, 1418 Elmhurst Rd., Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 rA MERCER SIGN LEASING, INC. November 2, 2005 Mark Cheran County of Frederick Department of Planning & Zoning 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester VA 22601 RE: CVS sign variance application Dear Mr. Cheran: I 3 X; Enclosed is the Board of Zoning Appeals Application for CVS at 1400 Tasker Road, Stephens City, VA. CVS is requesting permission to install an EMC sign display on the CVS Freestanding Sign. I have been advised by Bob Morin at Holiday Signs that the Sign Size or Sign Area issue referred to in your September 30th 2005 letter has already been settled, and that the Applicant does not have to request adjustment from the Board for Sign Size or Sign Area as per the drawing enclosed. If we are incorrect on this point, please advise us as soon as possible. Enclosed please find: - a Date -Stamped copy of the written decision forwarded to Holiday - completed Application Form - Supplemental Memo to go with Application Form - Filing Fee - (7) copies of the Sign Design - (7) copies of the property layout & photos (we will provide better at the hearing) - (7) copies each (one for all Board members) of these supporting documents: a. United States Sign Council Traffic Safety Study b. United States Sign Council EMC Research Review: c. EDMA White Paper on EMC Regulation d. United States Sign Council Information Load White Paper Please advise us if you need any additional information. We appreciate your help with this application. Sincerely, fkCEwford (215) 345-1481 CC: Bob Morin, Holiday Signs Headquarters: 538 North Street, P.O. Box 1595, Doylestown, PA 18901 Manufacturing Facilities: 302 North Washington Street, Orwigsburg, PA 17961 215-230-4666 / Fax: 215-345-1481 'p!, iy! [.rill i Ifil-111111 11"J 'IJ '110 '11 11l, III IIP Ill Dept. of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 L", iL *: -.;7 ...�6 ,. - .1. . . . .. A V, Nis. Tracey Dichl. HolkkiySigns I I 9."o 01(1 S411ye I(old Ckster. VA 23836 r. A- .44 .3. &I 44 act S an September 30.2005 Ms. Tracey Dichl Holiday Signs 11930 Old Stage Road Chester, VA 23836 COUNTY of F WEMCH Department of Planning and Development FAX: SW66$-6M RE: Zoning Determination; B2 (General Business) Zoning District Property identification Number (PTN): 75-A-10S1D Dear Ms. Diehl: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated September 8, 2005, to the Zoning Administrator requesting a Zoning determination on the above -referenced property. in the correspondence. you indicated that this property is in the general business district. Per your request. Frederick County Zoning requires that all signs on this property must adhere to the approved site plan and additional requirements w;t forth in this letter. via. Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed free standing business sign (24' x 15'8", 237 sq.ft.) fails to meet requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed signage would be prohibited by Section 165-30n(l) and 165-30H(1) of the Frederick County "Zoning Ordinance (see attached). Section 165-30A(1) states that animated or flashing signs shall he prohibited in all zoning districts and Section 165-301-1(1) prohibits franchised business signs exceeding 150 sq. ft. You may have the right to appeal this zoning determination within thirty (30) days of the (late of this letter in accordance wilt Section 15.2-2311 oi' the Code of Virginia. This decision shall be final and unappealable if it is not appealed within thin a Should you choose to appeal, the appeal must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals (13ZA) in accordance with Article XXI. Section 165- 155A(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, phis provision requires the submission of an application form, written statement setting lbrth the decision being appealed. date of decision. the grounds for the appeal, how the appellant is an aggrieved party, any other information you may want to submit and a $250.00 filing tee. Once the appeal application is accepted. it will be scheduled for public hearing and decision before the FWA. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 9 Winchester, Virginia 22601-3000 Page 2 OCT s za Ms. Tracey Diehl Re: Zoning Determination; B2 Zoning District September 30, 2005 Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions you may have at (540) 665- 5651. Sincerely, ark R. Cheran Zoning Administrator MRC/K7'T4/d.lw Attachment 9 • 15'-8" UPPER MOLDING 5'-6" T-6" 24'-0" OVERALL 10'-8" EMC 9'-7" UPPER SIGN �1C�CJ�j UPPER SIGN INTERNALLY ILLUM UL LISTEMMELED WHITE LEYAN RACE LED ELECTRONIC 40-- MESSAGE CENTER SIGN ZONING RECAP CVS FREE51ANPING SIGN: PROPOSED SIGN AREA UPPER SIGN* 52.70 EMC SIGN ® 37.33 TOTAL 90.03 SF 7�j do CHAPTER 10 SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1001 PURPOSE 1001.1 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the safety and orderly development of the community through the regulation of signs and sign structures. SECTION 1002 DEFINITIONS 1002.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein. ABANDONED SIGN. A sign structure that has ceased to be used, and the owner intends no longer to have used, for the dis- play of sign copy, or as otherwise defined by state law. ANIMATED SIGN. A sign employing actual motion or the il- lusion of motion. Animated signs, which are differentiated from changeable signs as defined and regulated by this code, include the following types: Electrically activated. Animated signs producing the illu- sion of movement by means of electronic, electrical or elec- tro-mechanical input and/or illumination capable of simulating movement through employment of the charac- teristics of one or both of the classifications noted below: 1. Flashing. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by a repeti- tive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same as or less than the period of nonillumination. For the purposes of this ordinance, flashing will not be defined as occurring if the cyclical period between on - off phases of illumination exceeds 4 seconds. 2. Patterned illusionary movement. Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by simulated movement through alter- nate or sequential activation of various illuminated el- ements for the purpose of producing repetitive light patterns designed to appear in some form of constant motion. Environmentally activated. Animated signs or devices motivated by wind, thermal changes or other natural envi- ronmental input. Includes spinners, pinwheels, pennant strings, and/or other devices or displays that respond to nat- urally occurring external motivation. Mechanically activated. Animated signs characterized by repetitive motion and/or rotation activated by a mechanical system powered by electric motors or other mechanically induced means. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION. Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the face of an exterior wall of a building, but that does not include signs as defined herein. See also "Awning"; "Backlit awning"; and "Canopy, attached and freestanding." AWNING. An architectural projection or shelter projecting from and supported by the exterior wall of a building and com- posed of a covering of rigid or nonrigid materials and/or fabric on a supporting framework that may be either permanent or re- tractable, including such structures that are internally illumi- nated by fluorescent or other light sources. AWNING SIGN. A sign displayed on or attached flat against the surface or surfaces of an awning. See also "Wall or fascia sign." BACKLIT AWNING. An awning with a translucent covering material and a source of illumination contained within its framework. BANNER. A flexible substrate on which copy or graphics may be displayed. BANNER SIGN. A sign utilizing a banner as its display sur- face. BILLBOARD. See "Off -premise sign' and "Outdoor adver- tising sign." BUILDING ELEVATION. The entire side of a building, from ground level to the roofline, as viewed perpendicular to the walls on that side of the building. CANOPY (Attached). A multisided overhead structure or ar- chitectural projection supported by attachments to a building on one or more sides and either cantilevered from such building or also supported by columns at additional points. The sur- face(s) and/or soffit of an attached canopy may be illuminated by means of internal or external sources of light. See also "Mar- quee." CANOPY (Free-standing). A multisided overhead structure supported by columns, but not enclosed by walls. The sur- face(s) and or soffit of a free-standing canopy may be illumi- nated by means of internal or external sources of light. CANOPY SIGN. A sign affixed to the visible surface(s) of an attached or free-standing canopy. For reference, see Section 1003. CHANGEABLE SIGN. A sign with the capability of content change by means of manual or remote input, including signs which are: Electrically activated. Changeable sign whose message copy or content can be changed by means of remote electri- cally energized on -off switching combinations of alpha- betic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface. Illumination may be integral to the components, such as characterized by lamps or other light -emitting de- vices; or it may be from an external light source designed to reflect off the changeable component display. See also "Electronic message sign or center." 2003 INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE® 29 • 0 APPEAL APPLICATION #26-05 4`cK' oO� HOLIDAY SIGNS ti ° Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals i Prepared: December 1, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Board of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE: December 20, 2005 - Pending .,,rppb,��, LOCATION: The property is located at 1400 Tasker Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERN: 75-A-105D PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zone: Land Use: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Zone RP (Residential Performance) East: Zone RP (Residential Performance) South: Zone: RP (Residential Performance) West: Zone: B2 (General Business) B2 (General Business) District Business Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Business APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-30A (1), animated or flashing signs. REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator as to the use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) and EMD (Electronic Message Display) signage in Frederick County. 9 • Appeal Application 426-05, Holiday Signs December 1, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with regards to LED (Light Emitting Diode) and EMD (Electronic Message Display) signs. Section 165-30 A (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not allow animated or flashing signs within Frederick County. Section 165- 156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance defines animated and flashing signs (See attachments). Section 165-4 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Administrator to make interpretations and applications of the zoning ordinance. Frederick County, in keeping with the intent and definition of animated and flashing signs, historically has not allowed this type of signage. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE December 20, 2005 MEETING: Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-30A (1) and Section 165-156, Sign, H & I, that LED and EMD signage is not permitted in Frederick County. Station ll • r Rd� Streets Zoning M2 (Industrial, General District) ^� Primary Roads '. _'�" B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) - MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) ^/ Secondary Roads = B2 (Business, General District) - MS (Medical Support District) Tertiary Roads • B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) - R4 (Residential Planned Community District) Winchester City Roads 4W EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) - R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) QWavier_ Req_HoildaySigns 410 HE (Higher Education Distnct) RA (Rural Areas District) Parcels 1W M1 (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) Urban Development Area OOWWSA F- 0 N W+E SS 250 Appeal # 26 - 05 Holiday Signs (75-A-105D) 500 `1 1,000 Feet i 1b a •54 �, �t4 a '•� � �•.� _ - - Vim: �:. 1 0 0 § 165-29 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-30 (2) In such cases, the Zoning Administrator may require a 'traffic access plan which describes existing traffic, conditions and design on the streets abutting the site and the methods proposed to ensure that the intent of this section has been met. C. Internal circulation. A complete system of internal traffic circulation shall be provided to serve all uses in any shopping center, 'industrial park or any development included in a single master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat approved by Frederick County. In such developments, internal access shall be provided in a fashion so that all uses can be mutually accessed without entering onto arterial or primary highways. In such .cases, a pattern of internal circulation shall be designed to ensure that conflicts are avoided between moving vehicles, parking areas, pedestrian areas, loading areas and the various uses provided. D. Pedestrian access. Safe pedestrian walkways shall be. provided to all uses on land included in a master plan or site plan approved by Frederick County. Sidewalks shall., be provided in conformance with adopted corridor or walkway plans or approved master development plans. The Planning Commission may require additional sidewalks or walkways on master plans or site plans to promote. a general system of pedestrian access in residential neighborhoods or business corridors. E. Fire .lanes. Fire lanes shall be required as set forth in Chapter 90, Fire Prevention. (Added 12-9-19921 § 165-30.. Signs. Signs shall be allowed or prohibited according to the following requirements in order to promote safety, to protect property values, to create an atmosphere conducive to orderly economic growth and to meet the intentions of this chapter: A. Signs prohibited in all districts. The following types of signs shall be prohibited in all zoning districts: (1) Animated or flashing signs. (2) Signs painted directly onto the exterior of buildings. 16546 12-15-99 § 165-30 ZONING § 165-30 the separation between the two signs was reduced from the required 50 feet. G. Height. No sign shall exceed the maximum height requirement for the zoning district in which they, are located. All signs other than business signs shall be no more than 10 feet in height. No freestanding business entrance sign shall exceed five feet in height. H. Size. The following restrictions shall apply to the size of signs: (1) No business sign or directional sign shall exceed 100 square feet in area. Standardized, franchised signs may exceed 100 square feet in area but shall not exceed 150 square feet in area. In the B1 Neighborhood Business. District, no .business or directional sign shall exceed 50 square feet in area. (2) Cottage occupation signs shall not exceed four square feet in area.. (3) Wall -mounted business signs in the B2 Business General, the B3 Industrial Transition, M1 Light Industrial,. the M2 Industrial General or the MS Medical Support Districts shall be permitted to i encompass 20% of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted business sign does not exceed 200 square feet. [Amended 9-12-2001 (4) No freestanding building entrance sign shall exceed four square feet in area. I. Maintenance. All signs .shall be maintained in a state of good repair. Signs that are damaged, structurally unsound or poorly maintained shall be repaired or removed within 30 days. (1) If an off -premises sign advertises abusiness or activity that is no longer being operated or conducted or if a directional sign refers to a location where the advertised activities no longer exist, that sign shall .be considered to be abandoned and shall be removed by the owner within 30 days. \ (2) If the message portion of a sign is removed, the supporting structural components shall be removed or the message portion replaced within 30 days. J. Sign permits. [Amended 6-9-19931 16549 s- 10 -zoos 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 September 30, 2005 Ms. Tracey Diehl Holiday Signs 11930 Old Stage Road Chester, VA 23836 RE: Zoning Determination; B2 (General Business) Zoning District Property Identification Number (PIN): 75-A-105D Dear Ms. Diehl: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated September 8, 2005, to the Zoning Administrator requesting a zoning determination on the above -referenced property. In the correspondence, you indicated that this property is in the general business district. Per your request, Frederick County Zoning requires that all signs on this property must adhere to the approved site plan and additional requirements set forth in this letter, via Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed free standing business sign (24' x 15'8", 237 sq.ft.) fails to meet requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed signage would be prohibited by Section 165-30A(1) and 165-30H(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (see attached). Section 165-30A(1) states that animated or flashing signs shall be prohibited in all zoning districts and Section 165-30H(1) prohibits franchised business signs exceeding 150 sq.ft. You may have the right to appeal this zoning determination within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. This decision shall be final and unappealable if it is not appealed within thirty (30) days. Should you choose to appeal, the appeal must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in accordance with Article XXI, Section 165- 155A(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This provision requires the submission of an application form, written statement setting forth the decision being appealed, date of decision, the grounds for the appeal, how the appellant is an aggrieved party, any other information you may want to submit and a $250.00 filing fee. Once the appeal application is accepted, it will be scheduled for public hearing and decision before the BZA. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 0 Page 2 Ms. Tracey Diehl Re: Zoning Determination; B2 Zoning District September 30, 2005 Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions you may have at (540) 665- 5651. Sincerely, ark R. Cheran Zoning Administrator MRC/KTH/dlw Attachment r i - 110' I REGULAR UNLEADED ..; T. s ... . �fr MID GRADE UNLEADED a` SUPER PREMIUM' �^ jw • 4 . J'� 1 Y 4 1S':5 TI : 1�' ,4 Y� t - •' s 3 gad - ( I I -T-4 1Z."O 2 0 0 5 10 e y . 2'•4i1 t , `" . .�� � ' S '' c- OAKTRONICB GALAXY 1 .06- 005 -up Ap,• _.w... P 4_ m -� 2005 1 4P APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA Appeal Application # Submittal Date Fee Paidyes initials: 1% USE ONLY - Submittal Deadline For the meeting of MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other v,-' (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) ,gye,t� ; NAME: 44e6fyS Sig _NAME: ICON ADDRESS /� 9 3o d�C f7`�Se ADDRESS: C'4!g�27t2 114 a 6/k C'zy✓e. (/i/lac /L (cAav> TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): /"/Co T% CO 2tiFJL �l �V�vV) �v J-1 i Ve. 2 F6L S'%Ca l S2 (. y2) 4. Magisterial District: 0,0e 9 vonJ 5. 14-Digit Property Identification No.: "7J -- A — / o f 1 6, The existing zoning of the property is: I3 2- ` i NcfL,-L 7. The existing use of the property 8. Adjoining Property: USE North Re SedP, - 6is - East /LP,2td-e fi.4-C_ South kl/,fCA, ,- West 13 vs: Axeoa— S7vrZ C. ZONING /� P /qP RP /3PZ 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the wiitten decision.)&,Wcka.L CA,t UJ=e 07` y1N 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. (This may be provided on separate sheet.) PbaQ, 'rep- a4kCA.0-d 11. Additional comments, if any: 1 I 41P 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list complete 14-digit property identification number.) NAME Ck [T\(-, Address . �� �� .���lam— l.t ll �l ">.Q C, Property ID# A �(��- `7�y2Go/�tiSv Address i 64 jg Ar V A 2.2 G Property ID # a�� — A Address i - C °Wi(i,km�"�1 (,�(U� y- S i- -�00 Property ID #--rb M- LT—Z---141A Address �(� S mote Property ID # (F4 / 8 SD LAddress A)b Property ID # ti Address Property ID # 7 '6�K C) fi1 � Q S' 9'l Ati Addtess°� Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # #J-r"P owl /1rJ'c 5 P o . 610 k- FLfF IVz�cke,Al V/1 22 670� Y- 130 YL)O ti I (Vml the WA015ip4 do hereby m Appeals WZA) b OMMe tine bra da robed haain. I ave to camply 4& mn�, I audwrfze the [strobe of to $7.A site h"etioo ptaposes_ I hmby c+at* that an aft" mem Imowledgq true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATQRE OF OWNER Czf 4teribnc a *k2-80 BZA PMLIC REARING OF APPEAL OVERBUi M APPEAL susTAV4ED xf. W penan &a Frederick CouW Berard ofza®W b'm afthe Coatoty ZIMM dtt&m3= as S Mgiat+ed by the BZA COUNY aodats to go ttpao the property rot �foo� cted ham are, to the best of my 19 �-- ONLY- AC7WN: DATE DATE t ► ` Z \ as FORD 24f 1481 p.2 Lin,r INUV ObSpecial Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) .J eA V// L[L (Phone) 7o f &6 i 9 t: L 9- (Address) /0• O. 20k 3S 3cix �7utii 4 /U G o2cp.OfSs the ownrer(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property's conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. /S 3 7 `/ on Page 0 and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: 64o?ce_ / to 4 do hereby make, constitute and appoint: /Ze Cvno( 1t b o y3 Sa 3 (Name) /1� It ,< CC Al 5G i 3- alct_ ,�.O (Phone) &0't `75iyy3 J",E /Z,( (Address) C'1,�, (if ;23.p fC E//c Coyi To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and m my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority, I (we) would have if acting personally to file plaunmg applications for my (our) above described Property, including: G Rezoning (Including proffers) G Conditional Use Permits G Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) G Subdivision 0 Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. in witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this ;: - A day of t-,, 200_.I,—, Signature(s) L State of V4%iuia, City/County of �1 �} 5 J To -wit: a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personallya ppeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ' day of 0 d 200�. Notary Pub " My Commission Expires: 0 15'-8" UPPER MOLDING • 5'-6" T-6" 24'-0" OVERALL 10'-8" EMC 9'-7" UPPER SIGN UPPER SIGN INTERNALLY ILLUM UL LISTED/LABELED WHITE LEXAN FACE LED ELECTRONIC �— MESSAGE CENTER SIGN ZONING RECAP CV5 FREESTANDING SIGN: PROPOSED SIGN AREA UPPER SIGN @ 52.70 EMC SIGN @ 37.33 TOTAL 90.03 5F LARGE D.F. ILLUMINATED PYLON w/ E.M.C. SCALE 1/400=1'-0" toa NECS Store ut 3 & R io Road alt P3409) 08-05 044093 11/09/04 08/02J05 09/27/05 `_r� 1418 Emhunt Rd. • • �'�7 Sore Rohe 3 $ Radb Road (SR 1042) oeh: OB-05-04 --- - -- icon) Elk Gress Vetoge •-_ _` Kilmarnock Virgiria 22462 au PMF M as aoo�� aar ruarcnsnr.saruro-rrauurgcamrs NOT TO SCALE toavba: Store *: 07557 Project A P34093 Far. 07557 P34093 a www. 11/09/04 O8/02/05 09/27/05 � 1418 HMxfrsf Rd. M/Pharma W' NEC State Route 3 & Radio Road (SR 1042) Dm 08-05-04 7 conElk mWage K niamock, Virginia 22482 mwa: PNF i° w � ' .• 9 0 Attachment in support of CVS Sign Application Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Covering Application Items #9-#11 and related issues a. Reguest Applicant is seeking permission to install a 3'-6" x 10'-8" LED "Electronic Message Center" (EMC) Sign on a new proposed Freestanding sign at the corner of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road. Applicant is seeking both a Code interpretation and, in the alternative, a Variance for this section of the sign. This LED unit falls within the broad category of exterior signs using modern and/or computer -controlled technology to display messages; often times referred to as EMCs (Electronic Message Center). The relevant Frederick County Zoning Code Section is Section 165-30 A (1). b. Interpretation Applicant requests approval to install the LED EMC Sign as it is permitted by right under the Frederick County Code. The requested LED EMC unit does not fall within the wording and language contained in Section 165-30 A (1) for the following reasons: 1. The wording "animated or flashing" was not intended to apply to EMCs, as this wording was inserted in Sign Codes across the United States in an earlier era when large Neon spectacular signs were common, and flashing arrows and moving parts and animations were a part of these signs. This type of wording continues to be listed in current Zoning Codes as a vestige of an earlier time. 2. The term "animate" is an undefined term in this Code and has no legally enforceable standard attached. 3. The term "flash" is an undefined term in this Code and has no legally enforceable standard attached. 4. LED signs have not been demonstrated to impair the vision of passing motorists, cause traffic accidents, or create driving complications (see below and attached documents); 5. The LED EMC illumination will be steady in nature; - sign will not flash - sign will not "animate" - Illumination will not change in brilliance, color or intensity 6. The LED EMC message will change periodically; certain LED clusters will activate, and others will switch off; this change is prompt and seamless; there will be no flashing or movement involved. 7. The national association of Municipal Code Officials, the International Code Council, recognizes EMCs and permits their use by right in the International Zoning Code (2003) Chapter 10. c. Variance In the alternative, Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 165-30 A (1), and any other Variances that maybe requiredto gain approval for this sign. Pursuant to the current standard for a Dimensional Variance in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Applicant is seeking an adjustment from the Prohibition provisions of the Frederick County Code to permit the EMC sign. As a part of its facility Identification, CVS often displays the local Time and Temperature information on its Freestanding Signs, as a public service, as well as other local public service announcements, in addition to its regular business -related information. CVS cannot display this information using an alternate technology; it must use modern technology. A Hardship is created if Code Section 165-30 A (1) is interpreted and applied to the CVS EMC unit. For instance, a Manual "readerboard" showing Time and Temperature would prevent the Applicant from displaying its message accurately and/or practically; it would create a comical scenario, with a CVS employee standing by the Freestanding Sign, changing the manual letters whenever the Time changed or the Temperature fluctuated. 0 0 Page 2 The only way to display Time and Temperature information and certain time -specific messages is to use modern computer -controlled technology. Frederick County apparently prohibits this technology. 1. Basis for the Prohibition The basis for the apparent LED EMC prohibition is unclear from the written Frederick County Code itself. Possible reasons for the "ban" are (a) Traffic Safety and (b) Aesthetics. 2. EMCs and Traffic Safety There is no scientific evidence or objective research that shows that EMCs have a negative impact on traffic safety (traffic safety being used as a general term to describe a variety of driving -related processes). The Applicant is not aware of any scientific research studies or empirical evidence that demonstrates that EMCs create or contribute to the occurrence of traffic accidents, unsafe traffic conditions or driver behavior, or have a negative impact on traffic safety. If the County has any objective research that shows that EMCs cause accidents, the Applicant would like the opportunity to review this information. Enclosed are four (4) research publications that have a bearing on this Application: a. Traffic Safety Study: In Part II of this study, when an EMC was installed at a major intersection in Pennsylvania, the accident rate at the intersection declined; b. EMC Research Review: no current studies say that EMCs are unsafe or cause accidents c. EDMA: EMC manufacturers have suggestions on EMC usage d. Information Load: Information on On Premises signs does not cause Drivers to have accidents In regard to the common usage of EMC signs, please note the following: - Many Jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia allow EMC signs; - All State DOTs in the United States use EMCs on their highways for announcements and alerts; - the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has recommendations for EMCs, and does not advocate their prohibition; - EMC manufacturers themselves have suggested standards for EMCs that Frederick County could implement; - No research indicates that EMCs have traffic safety issues; 3. EMCs and Aesthetics It is likely that a complete prohibition of a form of lawful Commercial Speech and specific technology cannot be supported on the basis of subjective taste or opinion in regard to sign appearance. This ban on a technology, if permitted, based solely on aesthetics, could potentially put an entire manufacturing industry out of business, based on personal aesthetic tastes. If Frederick County can maintain a prohibition, then all jurisdictions can implement such a prohibition, in addition to converting existing EMCs in other jurisdictions into non -conforming signs, and placing a manufacturing industry in peril. d. EMCs and First Amendment Every time a local municipality controls or restricts On Premises signs, it has implications under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. On Premises signs are a form of Commercial Speech. The US Supreme Court has indicated that Commercial Speech has protection under the First Amendment, and although this protection is not as broad as personal or private speech, it has expanded protection nonetheless. The Frederick County Code Section in question is an example of a "content neutral" Time, Place, and Manner regulation of On Premises Commercial Speech. The Applicant will suggest that this regulation fails the test set forth by the US Supreme Court when examining content -neutral regulations of Commercial Speech (Centtra/Hudson Gas & Electric Corp vPublic Sam Commission, 447 US 557 (1980) and related cases). The reasons for this suggestion are: 1. The CVS EMC display constitutes an exercise of "lawful' speech; there is no suggestion otherwise; 2. Although Frederick County has a substantial governmental interest in regulating commercial speech (i.e. Page 3 On Premises signs in general), it cannot assert a substantial governmental interest in regulating EMCs as it has been demonstrated that this technology has no traffic safety implications. 3. The regulation may advance the asserted governmental interest, if one is found; 4. However, the regulation is far more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest; Frederick County has instituted a complete ban of EMCs technology and the information that uses this technology. Restrictions on EMC signs, but not an outright ban, could address whatever local concerns may exist but also permit the display of the lawful Commercial Speech. 0 REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGNS Overview We are all very fortunate to live in a society that places a premium value on freedoms, and limits governmental intrusion upon those freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of those essential freedoms, and one that is embodied within the Constitution that molds the rule of law governing this great nation. Many reputable organizations, like the U.S. Small Business Administration and the International Sign Association caution against sign regulations that interfere with the freedom of exercising commercial speech. The following information has been assembled by a coalition of manufacturers of electronic message display signs. We recognize the uncertainty surrounding the legality of certain sign regulations. We also respect the desire by communities to regulate signs, including electronic message display signs, and the need for responsible sign codes. Without engaging in debate over the legality of regulations affecting electronic message displays, the following materials are intended to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the current state of the technology, and to promote regulations that reflect the broad variations in the use of electronic message displays. The History of Changeable Message Signs In the day when signs were primarily painted, changing messages on a sign merely required painting over the existing message. More recently, signs with removable lettering made it possible to manually change the lettering on a sign to display a new message. Electrical changeable message signs followed the invention of the light bulb, and included light bulbs arranged in a pattern where, by lighting some light bulbs and not the others, letters and numerals could be spelled out. With the advent of solid-state circuitry in the early 1970s, electronic changeable message signs became possible. The first of these products were time and temperature displays and simple text message displays using incandescent lamps. These lamps were very inefficient. They used a great deal of power and had short life expectancies. During the energy crunch of the 1980s, it became necessary to find ways to reduce the power consumption of these displays. This need initially spawned a reflective technology. This technology typically consisted of a light -reflective material applied to a mechanical device, sometimes referred to as "flip disk" 1 displays. Electrical impulses were applied to a grid of disks with reflective material on one side of the disk, and a contrasting finish on the other side. The electrical impulses would position each disk within the grid to either reveal or conceal the reflective portion of the device as required, to produce an image or spell out a message. These technologies were energy efficient, but due to the mechanical nature of the product, failures were an issue. Shortly after the introduction of the reflective products, new incandescent lamps emerged. The new "wedge base" Xenon gas -filled lamps featured many positive qualities. Compared to the larger incandescent lamps that had been used for several years, the wedge base lamps were very bright, required less power to operate and had much longer lifetimes. These smaller lamps allowed electronic display manufacturers to build displays that featured tighter resolutions, allowing users to create more ornate graphic images. Next in the evolution of the changeable message sign was the LED. LED (light emitting diode) technology had been used for changeable message displays since the mid 1970s. Originally, LEDs were available in three colors: red, green and amber, but were typically used for indoor systems because the light intensity was insufficient for outdoor applications and the durability of the diodes suffered in the changing temperatures and weather conditions. As technology improved, manufacturers were able to produce displays that had the intensity and long life required for outdoor use, but were limited in the viewing angle from which they could be effectively seen. Recently, breakthroughs in this field have made available high intensity LEDs in red, green, blue and amber. These LEDs have made it possible to produce displays bright enough for outdoor use with viewing angles that are equal to, or better than, other technologies currently available. They are energy -efficient, can be programmed and operated remotely, and require little maintenance. In addition, the computer software has evolved such that a broad range of visual effects can be used to display messages and images. The spacing of the LEDs can be manipulated to achieve near -television resolution. Earlier "flip disk" and incandescent technologies have become nearly obsolete as a result. Types of Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs can be placed into two basic categories: manually - changed and electronically -changed. The most common form of manually - changed sign involves a background surface with horizontal channels. Letters and numerals are printed on individual plastic cards that are manually fitted into the channels on the sign face. A broad range of letter styles and colors are available. The manually -changed sign is relatively inexpensive and is somewhat versatile. Some discoloration has been experienced in the background surface materials 2 with exposure to weather and the sun. Changing the message on such a sign is accomplished by having an employee or technician remove the existing plastic letter cards and replacing them with cards displaying the new message. Occasionally, such signs have been the subjects of vandals who steal the letters or, as a prank, re -arrange them to spell out undesirable messages. Over time, as letters are replaced with lettering styles that deviate in color or type style from the original set, such signs have had a tendency to take on a mix -and -match appearance. Electronic changeable message signs are generally of two types: light emitting and light reflective. Current light emitting display technologies include LED and incandescent lamp. Light reflective displays typically consist of either a reflective material affixed to a mechanical device (like a "flip disk') or a substance commonly referred to as electronic ink. Many of the above mentioned technologies have the capabilities to display monochromatic (single color) or multiple color images. Monochrome changeable message signs are typically used to display text messages. Multiple color displays are more common in applications where color logos or video is displayed. Operational Capabilities of Electronic Signs Electronic signs have evolved to the point of being capable of a broad range of operational capabilities. They are controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program. This software is typically a proprietary component that is supplied by the display manufacturer. These software programs determine the capabilities of the displays. The software is then loaded onto a computer that operates the sign. The computer may be installed within the sign itself, operated remotely from a nearby building, or even more remotely by a computer located miles away and connected. to the sign with a telephone line modem or other remote communication technology. Since most of the software programs are proprietary, one can assume that each software program is slightly different. However, the capabilities that the programs offer are all very similar. Changeable message sign manufacturers provide software that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer -generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television -quality video. Text messages or graphic images can simply appear and disappear from the display or they can be displayed using creative entry and exit effects and transitions. 3 Example: Oftentimes a display operator will choose to have a text message scroll onto the display and then "wipe -off" as if the frame has been turned like the page of a book. If a display has the capabilities to display graphics, logos or even video, it is common for the display operator to add motion to these images. Example: A display operator at a school may wish to create an animation where their school's mascot charges across a football field and runs over the competing school's mascot. Video -capable displays can operate much like a television. These displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text. All display capabilities are securely in the hands of the display operators. They are ultimately responsible for what type of, and how, information is displayed on their changeable message sign. Traffic Safety Considerations Electronic message displays (EMDs) are capable of a broad variation of operations, from fully -static to fully -animated. In exterior sign use, they are often placed where they are visible to oncoming traffic. Concerns are often raised as communities change their sign codes to expressly permit such signage about the traffic safety implications for signage with moving messages. These concerns are largely unfounded. EMDs have been in operation for many years. As is typical with many technological advances, the regulatory environment has been slow to respond to advances in the technology itself. In 1978, after many years of the use of electronic signs, Congress first passed legislation dealing with the use of illuminated variable message signs along the interstate and federal aid primary highway system. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act permitted electronic message display signs, subject to state law, provided each message remained fixed on the display surface but "which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or remote control," and did not include "any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights." 23 U.S.C. § 131. In 1980, and in response to safety concerns over EMDs along highways, the Federal Highway Administration published a report titled "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable- 2 Message Signs." This report was an exhaustive analysis of the safety implications of EMDs used along highways. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of safety studies that had occurred to that time, some concluding that roadside signs posed a traffic distraction, and others concluding that roadside signs do not cause traffic accidents. In view of the inevitable use of the technology in signage, the report made some sensible observations about traffic safety considerations for such signs: 1. Longitudinal location. The report recommended that spacing standards be adopted to avoid overloading the driver's information processing capability. Unlike the standard for sign regulations in 1980, most communities today have spacing standards already integrated into their sign codes. 2. Lateral location. Often referred to as "setback," the report initially recommended the common sense requirement that such signs be placed where the risk of colliding into the sign is eliminated. This was a legitimate concern, as such signs were being contemplated for use by highway departments themselves in the right-of-way. Private use of roadside signs is generally limited to locations outside the right-of-way, so this should not be a significant concern. The next issue addressed by the report was visibility. The report advocated the minimum setback feasible, stating that "standards for lateral location should reduce the time that drivers' attention is diverted from road and traffic conditions. Generally this suggests that signs should be located and angled so as to reduce the need for a driver to turn his head to read them as he approaches and passes them." This can best be handled by permitting such signs to be located at the property line, with no setback, and angled for view by oncoming traffic. 3. Operations: Duration of message on -time. The report states that the duration of the message on -time should be related to the length of the message, or in the case of messages displayed sequentially, the message element. For instance, based on state highway agency experience, "comprehension of a message displayed on a panel of three lines having a maximum of 20 characters per line is best when the on -time is 15 seconds. In contrast, the customary practice of signing which merely displays time and temperature is to have shorter on -times of 3 to 4 seconds." Since this 1980 report, state highway agencies have adopted, for use on their own signs, informal standards of considerably shorter "on" time duration, with no apparent adverse effects on traffic safety. Federal legislation affecting billboard use of electronic signs 5 • requires only that messages be changed at "reasonable intervals."' Moreover, the U.S. Small Business Administration, in a report on its website reviewing safety information compiled since the 1980 report, has concluded that there is no adverse safety impact from the use of EMD signs. See http://www.sba.gov/startinqZsiqnage/­safelegal.html. The most recent study was performed in 2003 by Tantala Consulting Engineers, available through the U.S. Sign Council at http://www.ussc.org/publications.html, also concluding based on field studies that EMD signs do not adversely affect traffic safety. Many small businesses using one -line EMD displays are only capable of displaying a few characters at one time on the display, changing frequently, which takes virtually no time for a driver to absorb in short glances. These signs have likewise not proven to be a safety concern, despite many years of use. 4. Operations: Total information cycle. EMD signs can be used to display stand-alone messages, or messages that are broken into segments displayed sequentially to form a complete message. As to the sequential messages, the report recommended a minimum on -time for each message "calculated such that a motorist traveling the affected road at the 851h percentile speed would be able to read not more than one complete nor two partial messages in the time required to approach and pass the sign." 5. Operations: Duration of message change interval and off -time. The report defines the message change interval as the portion of the complete information cycle commencing when message "one" falls below the threshold of legibility and ending when message "two" in a sequence first reaches the threshold of legibility. This is relevant when operations such as "fade off -fade on" are used, when the first message dissolves into the second message, or when the two messages move horizontally (traveling) or vertically (scrolling) to replace the first message with the second. Off -time, on the other hand, is a message change operation that involves the straightforward turning off of the first message, with a period of blank screen, before the second message is instantly turned on. 1 The appropriate interval of message change may be affected by a variety of factors, and one standard does not fit all situations. Imagine, for instance, a bridge that serves two roadways, one with a speed limit of 30 mph and the other a highway with a speed limit of 60 mph. In a situation where the bridge is socked in by fog, an electronic sign on the approach to the bridge may be used to convey the message, "Fog ahead ... on bridge... reduce speed ... to 15 mph." The driver on each roadway needs to see all the segments to the full message. The rate of changing each segment of the message needs to be different for each roadway. If the change rate were based only on the 60 mph speed, the sign on the slower roadway may appear too active. If the change rate were based only on the 30 mph speed, the result could be fatal to drivers on the highway. 2 0 0 The report takes an extremely conservative approach as to message change interval, advising against the use of operations other than nearly instantaneous message changes. If such operations are permitted, the report suggests "that the figure commonly used as a measure of average glance duration, 0.3 second, be used here as a maximum permissible message change time limit." The report further advocates minimizing off -time between messages, where static message changes are used, stating that "[a]s this interval of off -time is lengthened, the difficulty of maintaining the continuity of attention and comprehension is increased." The conservative nature of the authors' position is reflected both in the report, and in over twenty years of practice since the report was issued. The report cites studies indicating that, in some situations, the use of electronic operations had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, by creating a more visually -stimulating environment along an otherwise mind -numbing segment of highway, helping to re -focus and sharpen the driver's attention to his or her surroundings. In over twenty years of experience, with numerous electronic signs nationwide utilizing the various operational capabilities for message change, there has been no significant degradation to highway safety reported. Many electronic signs used by highway departments now use a mode of transition between messages or message segments, such as traveling or scrolling. Drivers are apparently capable of attaching primacy to the visual information most critical to the driving task, with sign messages taking a secondary role. The report further expresses its limited focus upon interstate and federal aid primary highways. Noting the stimulating visual environment created by full - animation signage in places like Times Square, Las Vegas and Toronto's Eaton Centre, the authors of the report agreed that such signs added vitality and dimension to the urban core, but discouraged the use of animation alongside the highway. The report did not deal with the use of such signs, or their operational characteristics, on roadways between the extremes of the interstate highway and the urban core. In addition, animation has now been used on highway -oriented signs in many locations for years, with no reported adverse effect of traffic safety. In sum, the report acknowledged the appropriateness of full -animation electronic signs within the urban core, but recommended that full -animation not be used along interstate and primary highways. It took a conservative position on operations of such signs along highways, advocating static message change sequences only, with no more than 0.3 seconds of message change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such signs 7 change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at reasonable intervals." Such signs should have adequate spacing between signs, but be set back from the right- of-way as little as feasible. Since 1980, no new information has become available supporting a traffic safety concern about EMDs. They have been installed in highway locations, along city streets and in urban core settings, using all forms of operations: static, sequential messaging and full animation. Despite such widespread use, and the presence of environmental organizations generally adverse to sign displays, no credible studies have established a correlation between EMDs and a degradation in traffic safety. An article in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in Spring, 1997, arrived at the same conclusion. Professor Taylor, of Villanova University, analyzing this lack of data to support such a correlation, concluded that "there appears to be no reason to believe that changeable message signs represent a safety hazard." From a safety standpoint, and based on the studies and practical experience that has been accumulated since the widespread use of EMDs, some conclusions can be reached: • In an urban core setting, where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable, full -animation EMDs have been shown to be viable without degrading traffic safety. • In an urban setting, such as along arterial streets, EMDs have been used with static messages changed by use of transitions such as traveling, scrolling, fading and dissolving, without any apparent impact on traffic safety. Quite likely, this can be attributed to the primacy of the navigation task, and the secondary nature of roadside signage. • Along interstate and other limited access highways, the only significant traffic safety analysis recommends the use of static messages only, and the federal government permits message changes at "reasonable intervals." Many highway departments change messages on their own signs every 1-2 seconds. The report further recommends that sequential messages be timed to ensure that the entire sequence of messages be displayed in the time it takes a car to travel from initial legibility to beyond the sign. In practice, and in the 20+ years since publication of this report, the operational characteristics of such signs have been expanded to include 10V 0 • fading, dissolving, scrolling and traveling, without any apparent adverse effect on traffic safety. Regulation of Electronic Signs The history of the regulation of electronic signs has been largely marked by polar extremes in regulation. A number of zoning and sign codes have treated such signs as any other sign, with no special regulations. Others have attempted to prohibit their use in the entirety, largely out of concerns for traffic safety, and in some cases in the stated interest of aesthetics. For the reasons stated above, the traffic safety concerns have been largely unfounded. In decades of use and intense scrutiny, no definitive relationship between electronic signs and traffic accidents has been established. In fact, some studies have suggested that animated electronic signs may help keep the driver whose mind has begun to wander re -focused on the visual environment in and around the roadway. No studies support the notion that an electronic sign with a static display has a visual impact, from either a traffic safety or aesthetic impact, different from that of any other illuminated sign. Despite this, the fear of negative impact from potentially distracting signs has in the past motivated some communities to attempt to prohibit electronic signs altogether. Two common approaches have been to prohibit sign "animation" and the "intermittent illumination" of electronic signs. Both approaches have had their limitations. Electronic signs that are computer -controlled often have the capability to be displayed with a multitude of operational characteristics, many of which fall within the typical definition of "animation." However, static display techniques are quite commonplace with electronic signs, and the cost of using electronics in relatively typical sign applications has become more affordable. The programming of an electronic sign to utilize static displays only is simple and straightforward, yet probably overkill in the legal and practical sense. Nonetheless, out of fear that the programming may be changed to animation after a sign is permitted and operational, some local regulators have attempted to take the position that LED and other electronic signs are prohibited altogether. This position is unsound. There is no legal basis to deny a static -display electronic sign, as it is legally indistinguishable from any other illuminated sign. We don't prohibit car usage merely because the cars are designed so that they can exceed the speed limit; we issue a ticket to the driver if they do exceed the speed limit. Likewise, if a sign owner actually violates the zoning or sign code, the remedy is to cite them for the violation, not to presume that they will do so and refuse to issue 9 • 0 permits at the outset. Moreover, most communities permit changing messages on signs displaying time and temperature, with no restrictions on timing. To apply a different standard to signs displaying commercial or noncommercial messages would be to regulate on the basis of the content of the sign, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The code technique of prohibiting "intermittent illumination" has its own limitations as it relates to electronic signs. The term "intermittent" suggests that the sign is illuminated at some times, and not illuminated at others. This is no basis to distinguish between an electronic sign and any other illuminated sign. Virtually all illuminated signs go through a cycle of illumination and non -illumination, as the sign is turned off during the day when illumination is not needed, or during the evening after business hours. If this were the standard, most sign owners would be guilty of a code violation on a daily basis. Other terminology may be used in sign codes, but the fact is that a regulation must be tailored to the evil it is designed to prevent. Community attitudes toward viewing digital images have changed nationwide, with personal computer use and exposure to electronic signs becoming widespread. People are simply accustomed to the exposure to such displays, more so than in years past. In some communities, there remains a concern about the potential that such signs may appear distracting, from a safety or aesthetic standpoint. Yet, static displays do not have this character, and even EMDs with moving text have not proven to have any negative impact. The real focus should be on the operations used for the change in message, and frame effects that accompany the message display. Many of these transition operations and frame effects are quite subtle, or otherwise acceptable from a community standpoint. It is now possible to define these operations, in the code itself, with sufficient specificity to be able to enforce the differences between what is acceptable and what is not. The critical regulatory factors in the display of electronic changeable message signs are: 1) Duration of message display, 2) Message transition, and 3) Frame effects. With the exception of those locations where full animation is acceptable, the safety studies indicate that messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Government users of signs have utilized 1-2 seconds on their own signs as a reasonable interval for message changes, and other communities permit very short display times or continuous scrolling on business signs without adverse effect. As a policy matter, some communities have elected to adopt longer duration periods, although to do so limits the potential benefits of using an electronic sign, particularly where messages are broken down into segments displayed sequentially on the sign. The message transitions and frame effects are probably the greater focus, from a sign code standpoint. It is during the message transition or frame effect that the eye is most likely drawn to the sign. What is acceptable is a matter of community 10 attitude. Flashing is a frame effect that is prohibited in many communities, but other more subtle transitions can be accepted. It is relatively easy to define four basic levels of operational modes for message transitions that can be incorporated into a.sign code: Level 1 Static Display Only (messages changed with no transition) Level 2 Static Display with "Fade" or "Dissolve" transitions, or similar subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images Level Static Display with "Travel" or "Scrolling" transitions, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text or animated images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once Level 4 Full Animation, Flashing and Video There are, in fact, other operations recognized within the industry. However, in practice they can be equated in visual impact with "fade," "dissolve," "travel" or "scrolling," based on their visual effect, or otherwise be considered full animation. Different transition operations may be acceptable in different locations. For example, communities like Las Vegas accept full animation as a community standard, whereas others accept full animation only in urban core locations where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable. Some communities may desire not to have an area with such visual stimuli, and elect to prohibit animation everywhere. However, in such a community, fade or scrolling may be acceptable forms of message transitions for static displays. In the most conservative communities, static displays with no observable transition between messages may be the only acceptable course. The next decision point for a community seeking to regulate electronic signs is procedural. Some signs may be acceptable always, while the community may determine that others are acceptable only in certain given circumstances. Alternatives to be considered for a sign code are as follows: 0 Permit electronic signs "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs with certain transitions "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs, subject to a review procedure 11 0 Permit electronic signs, with certain transitions, subject to a review procedure A hybrid of the above For instance, one community may find it acceptable to permit electronic signs, with full animation, as a matter of right. Other than a straightforward sign permit, no other review is required. In another community, the sign code structure may permit: 1) Static displays with no transitions as a matter of right, 2) static displays using fade or dissolve transitions as a matter of right in certain commercial zoning districts, 3) static displays using travel and scrolling transitions and animations in certain commercial districts, subject to approval of a special use permit, where the approving board can consider compatibility with surrounding land uses and attach conditions on the rate of message changes, and 4) Fully-animated/video displays in the downtown commercial district only, subject to approval of a special use permit. The level of procedure involved should be tailored to the acceptance level of the community, and the resources available should public review be desired. In the following section, we have provided model code language that can be used, for reference, to incorporate into a community's sign code. The model language suggests code scenarios based on each of the four levels of display transitions. It also provides alternative language, for some scenarios, to either incorporate a special review procedure or not. Of course, the model language must be tailored to a particular community's sign code. Variation may be necessary, where, for instance, the special review procedure would be by the local planning commission, city council or design review board. With ease, the model code language can be modified to meet local conditions. © 2004 Electronic Display Manufacturers Association 12 0 0 Model Sign Code Provisions for Electronic Signs Level 1-Static Display (Message Changed with no Transition) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval seconds. c. Message Change Sequence. [Alternative 1: The change of messages must be accomplished immediately.] [Alternative 2: A minimum of 0.3 seconds of time with no message displayed shall be provided between each message displayed on the sign.] 13 0 0 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 2-Static Display (Fade/Dissolve Transitions) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, changed only through dissolve or fade transitions, or with the use of other subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images, but which may otherwise not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 14 • • Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 3-Static Display (Travel/Scroll Transitions and Animations) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a it single frame to attract the attention of viewers. 6 SCROLL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move vertically across the display surface. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. TRAVEL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move horizontally across the display surface. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall be limited to static displays, messages that appear or disappear from the display through dissolve, fade, travel or scroll modes, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text, animated graphics or images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval seconds. 15 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 4-Video/Animation 0 Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means, including animated graphics and video. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] r a 16 P.01 TRANSACTION REPORT NOV-02-05 WED 03:46 PM K DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP K NOV-02 03:45 PM 15406656395 31" 1 SEND OK 839 �c TOTAL 31S PAGES; 1 4P Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia,107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) J"fA V%/ , LL c. �F&2 ey Imo (Phone) '7o y 86 i Y(- 2 9- (Address) A O - %90),- 3S ads N C- -Z6FUS�o the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property') conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office"of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. /S 3 7 `f on Page Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: v , and is described as Subdivision: 64 &c.-- 110 # 7,T A /o.s- /L Recona 0 60(Y3,703 (Name) 1Yb hd,. c> 9•J �— � CON (Phone) coo �i' 2 S (- 5 yy3 1 I y 3o a!d J-YIE�C I24C yIt A 4 CAs r tZK (Address) C26�.G, ai (/,/ ;23& alG EI/c 6,sy,, .. IL G (po � To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: 0 Rezoning (Including proffers) G Conditional Use Permits 0 Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) G Subdivision 0 Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of 200___, Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of To -wit: 1, , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _ day of , 200 Notary Public My Commission Expires: Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND T12VIE OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John COMMENTS INITIALS DATE & TIME Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): f'�?b ► 31 u`� 5 �� 4 , j m9ft em, A�Iwd --i - prilts kit i You Shco 29 qr- ft""wwmwAMm� 12-06.2 Im, Omni -0 , i �� I a 40 . ..... ......... OAKTRONICS GA-Y MW sm 0 r -i �- 12-06-2005 It i 3 Q li /0 ,� -. 7(w • 6 40 40 I GA- , kN N M ZA` 2005 II - IS �tM �a/��os ���, � • off REGULAR UNLEADED MID GRADE UNLEADED SUPER PREMIUM _ t 1 1 ��'06 ry { 73 g f 1 1 � . COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: APPEAL APPLICATION #26-05 OF HOLIDAY SIGNS On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Tuesday, December 20, 2005, at 3:25 p.m., in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This is a public hearing to consider the following application: Appeal Application #26-05 of Holiday Signs, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-30A(1), animated or flashing signs. The subject property is located at 1400 Tasker Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-105D in the Opequon Magisterial District. Any interested parties may attend this hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, ark R. Cheran Zoning and Subdivision Administrator MRC/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick u' ' County, a: - __ ----- --- ---- 75 A-' -105-D Icon U) 115G JEM VII, LLC Iv 1418 Elmhurst Rd. PO BOX 3538 GASTONIA, NC 75 - A- -104-E JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 28054.0020 22655.0480 75 - A- -105-C H N FUNKHOUSER & CO, INC P 0 BOX 2038 WINCHESTER,VA 22604 75M - 4.3-141-A THE RYLAND GROUP, INC 4100 MONUMENT CORNER DR STE 3 FAIRFAX, VA 22030.8609 .Mosby Homeowners Assoc. PO Bog 888 Winchester, VA 22604 Holiday Signs 11930 Old Stage Rd. Chester, VA 23836 OPLA STATE OF VIRGRiIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Mark R. Cheran Zoning & Subdivision Administrator Frederick County Planning Dept. a Notary Public in, and for the State and County aforesaid, do lidreby certify that Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, for the Departs ent of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated an, 49 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State Znd dounty aforesaid. Given under my hand this —day of o�6� My commission expires on c.�b R NOTARY LIC TO: BARBARA-DATA PROCESSING FROM:BEV - Planning Dept. n A ', // ,7� _�_/o-� ✓ Please print � sets of labels by I//�/k- �'— THANKS! 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations ownuig property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list complete 14-digit property identification number.) NAME J QC' Address Po Property ID # 90, ��,�5 l� .22 5 - A -- O L{ Et - 7,f y Z G o / ti sv () Address p( e)dk3� �� .22C. Property ID # Address C,Irw V J f -�O0 Property ID ►� --3 A I MCCS 1� t U ' Address Property ID # �, n n -16 f - I - � - oC A LAddress At� 113(k t� Nda or ; � ;'C Property ID # -Do r� 'i-- lea v e A- U .J Address I t S+r►�� F'or[. ro0S b� I4uh - tv., r Property ID # 7-c�K o a�- Cj /1 f&'t 74ti A sh Property ID # Address IV itiCk4z,Aq V,4 22 (,0t� Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # C-Yr J� 0 30